Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


THE ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


_________________________________________________________________ 


Summary Minutes of the Forty-sixth Meeting 


May 2-4, 2007 


_________________________________________________________________
 

The Forty-sixth Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held May 2 through 4, 2007 at The 


Westin Westminster in Westminster, Colorado. The meeting was called by 


the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National 


Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agency 


chartered with administering the ABRWH. These summary minutes, as well 


as a verbatim transcript certified by a court reporter, are available 


on the internet on the NIOSH/Office of Compensation Analysis and 


Support (OCAS) web site located at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


Those present included the following: 


Board Members: Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Mr. Mark Griffon; Dr. James 


Melius; Ms. Josie Beach; Mr. Bradley Clawson; Mr. Michael Gibson; Mr. 


Mark Griffon; Dr. James Lockey; Ms. Wanda Munn; Mr. Robert Presley; Dr. 


Genevieve Roessler; Mr. Phillip Schofield. 


Designated Federal Official: Dr. Lewis Wade, Executive Secretary. 


Federal Agency Attendees: 


Department of Health and Human Services: 


CDC Washington: Mr. Jason Broehm 


NIOSH/OCAS: Dr. Christine Branche, Mr. Larry Elliott, Dr. Sam Glover, 


Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, Dr. Gregory V. Macievic, Dr. James Neton, Mr. 


LaVon Rutherford, Dr. Brant Ulsh. 


Office of General Counsel: Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus, Ms. Emily Howell. 


Department of Labor: Mr. Jeff Kotsch 


Department of Energy: Ms. Libby White 


1
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Contractors: 


Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr. John Mauro, Sanford Cohen & Associates (SC&A). 


Congressional Staff: Ms. Jeanette Alberg (Senator Wayne Allard), Ms. 


Carolyn Boller (Congressman Mark Udall), Ms. Deb Detmers (Congressman 


John Shimkus), Mr. Jonathan Epstein (Senator Jeff Bingaman), Mr. David 


Hiller (Senator Ken Salazar), Mr. Bill Holer (Congressman Ed 


Perlmutter), Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz (Congressman Tom Udall), Ms. 


Erin Minks (Senator Ken Salazar), Mr. Robert Stephan (Senator Barack 


Obama), Mr. Jason Thielman (Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave), Ms. Portia 


Wu (via telephone for Senator Ted Kennedy). 


Members of Congress: Senator Barack Obama (via telephone), Senator Ken 


Salazar (via telephone), Congressman John Shimkus (via telephone). 


Other Participants: (See Registration) 


 * * * * *
 

Wednesday, May 2, 2007


 Opening Remarks
 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Board Chairman, Opened the meeting and reminded 


guests, Board members, and others to register attendance in the 


registration book. He also indicated there was a sign-up sheet for 


members of the public who wished to speak. Dr. Ziemer noted the 


activities of the Board members and thanked them for their extensive 


time and effort. 


Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal Official, announced there was a 


quorum present and added his thanks to the Board for their service. He 


observed this was the beginning of a period where SEC petitions would 


be a big part of the work. 


* * * * *
 

NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Larry Elliott, 


NIOSH/OCAS 


Mr. Elliott began by referring to a teleconference meeting in which he 


had advised that the dose reconstruction program and SEC petition 


processing program at NIOSH were in resource-limited straits. He 


2
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


explained contracting support would be scaled down across the board. 


He added the Battelle contract ending at the end of May would not be 


renewed, and that the ORAU contract due to expire September 11 could be 


maintained at current levels only through May. ORAU would virtually 


stop work in July. He noted that support to the Board work would 


diminish dramatically as the July meeting approached with no new funds 


available until fiscal year '08. 


Mr. Elliott outlined that as of April 25th this year DOL had forwarded 


23,871 claims. Of that number, 83 percent (19,834) had been completed 


and returned to DOL. There were 17,800 returned with dose 


reconstructions, 599 pulled by DOL for various reasons, and 1,391 being 


considered for eligibility to the Special Exposure Cohort. This left 


16 percent (3,813) at NIOSH for dose reconstruction or SEC claim 


processing. Mr. Elliott added one percent (224) was administratively 


closed, and 57 of the claims were reopened for additional work or upon 


receipt of the OCAS-1 form, and then forwarded to DOL for a decision. 


Mr. Elliott continued that of the 17,884 dose reconstructions sent back 


to DOL, 28 percent (4,934) were greater than 50 percent and found to be 


compensable while 72 percent were less than 50 percent probability of 


causation and therefore denied. 


Mr. Elliott presented a graphic of the probability of causation for all 


claims with completed dose reconstructions. 


In his presentation Mr. Elliott made special note of older claims, 


commenting that of the 3,813 claims remaining at NIOSH for dose 


reconstruction, 42 percent (1,586) are one year or older. He continued 


that of the first block of 5,000 (the oldest) claims, 66 are awaiting 


dose reconstructions; 4,358 have final dose reconstructions returned to 


DOL; 55 were administratively closed; 246 were pulled back by DOL; 172 


are being considered or have been found eligible for the Special 


Exposure Cohort; 24 have dose reconstruction reports with claimants for 


the OCAS-1 form; and 79 have been returned by DOL for additional work. 


Mr. Elliott presented graphics illustrating progress of all the claims, 


both by tracking number and by quarter. 


Addressing reworks, Mr. Elliott indicated DOL had requested some level 


of rework on 2,197 claims, of which 1,810 have been completed and 


returned. 


Mr. Elliott reminded the assembly that upon receipt of a claim from 


Department of Labor, NIOSH asks Department of Energy for all available 


relevant exposure monitoring information for that claim. Currently 


there are 667 outstanding requests, with 44 greater than 60 days. 


3
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


There is a 30-day follow-up with DOE as to where the request stands, 


and any circumstances or problems that may be associated with the 


delay. He noted NIOSH doesn't see any trend associated with those 


older than 60 days. 


Addressing Battelle activities, Mr. Elliott indicated two Technical 


Basis Documents had been approved, one for uranium metal processing and 


one for uranium refining processes. Sixteen site-specific appendices 


will accompany these. He pointed out the contract had been awarded to 


address claims from Atomic Weapons Employers, which were not receiving 


adequate attention. The fruits of Battelle's labor is being seen now. 


Reporting on SEC petitions, Mr. Elliott observed 88 petitions have been 


received. Thirty-nine have been qualified for evaluation and 17 


classes have been added. Eight petitions are currently under 


development, and 36 petitions did not qualify. Under the 17 added 


classes, 1,391 claims are being considered and four sites have been 


identified for 83.14s. 


Mr. Elliott explained Program Evaluation Reports are the result of a 


changing procedure or methodology which, by regulation, requires review 


of all previous dose reconstructions that were found to be noncompensable. He discussed briefly the ten Program Evaluation Reports 


which have been completed, making note of Revision 2 of the Bethlehem 


Steel site profile since it was scheduled to be discussed during this 


meeting. There were seven previously compensable claims now shown to 


have a POC less than 50 percent. There were also three claims that 


would go over 50 percent as result of the changes. DOL has been 


advised and will decide how to handle those claims. 


With Rocky Flats on this meeting agenda, Mr. Elliott also mentioned the 


effect of the Rocky Flats Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project data had 


been found to have made no change in the 88 non-compensable claims. 


Mr. Elliott defined Program Evaluation Plans and listed the six which 


have been issued. He stated there are many Program Evaluation Reviews 


ahead. 


Mr. Elliott indicated the conflict of interest policy has been fully 


implemented and referred everyone to the web site. 


Mr. Elliott announced that Special Exposure Cohort ombudsman Ms. Denise 


Brock and counselor Ms. Laurie Ishak Breyer have started to organize 


SEC outreach meetings. The first is to be held May 23 and 24 in Idaho 


Falls, Idaho. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss and guide 


potential SEC petitioners through the process. 


4
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Mr. Elliott reviewed the distributions of the probability of causation 


for the facilities to be addressed at this meeting. There have been 


1,210 Rocky Flats claims received from DOL; 123 are active now, 21 have 


been pulled back by DOL, and 1,066 dose reconstructions have been 


completed. Department of Labor has found 76 percent of the dose 


reconstructed claims to be non-compensable and 34 percent to be 


compensable. 


Moving to Bethlehem Steel, he said NIOSH has completed 97 percent of 


the 740 claims; 42 claims remain active, three have been pulled, and 


695 dose reconstructions have been completed. Fifty-five percent have 


been non-compensable and 45 percent compensable. 


He continued that at Los Alamos National Lab 848 claims have been 


received, 145 remain active, 236 have been pulled back, and 467 dose 


reconstructions have been completed. Of those completed, 79 percent 


are non-compensable and 21 percent compensable. 


At Chapman Valve 74 dose reconstructions have been completed on the 127 


claims, with 64 percent non-compensable and 36 percent compensable. At 


W.R. Grace 35 DRs have been completed, with 26 percent having been 


found non-compensable and 74 percent found compensable. 


Mr. Elliott didn't have the numbers broken down for the slide on Sandia 


National Lab at Livermore, although there are 34 completed DRs from the 


79 sent from DOL. There was no chart available for Dow Chemical, but 


two of 118 claims had been reconstructed with both being compensable. 


Discussion Points: 


#Will the budget issue result in layoffs at NIOSH; 


#Will the budget issue affect Battelle; 


#The contract ends in May and there is no money to continue it. 


* * * * *
 

DOL PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Jeffrey Kotsch, 


Department of Labor
 

Mr. Kotsch explained the DOL program is divided into two parts. Part B 


deals with cancer, chronic beryllium disease, beryllium sensitivity, 


silicosis and RECA claims; and it is these that to which NIOSH dose 


reconstructions are related. He reported the DOL statistics for Part B 


indicating they are a snapshot as of April 25th and that, due to 


idiosyncracies, his numbers don't match those of NIOSH exactly. 


5
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


He also explained the other portion of the program, Part E, deals with 


toxic exposures and provided some statistics related to those claims. 


Mr. Kotsch reported that, to date, DOL has issued $2.5 billion in 


compensation, $1.9 billion in Part B, with $1.4 billion being in cancer 


claims, $229 million for RECA, and the remainder for chronic beryllium 


and silicosis type cases. He further reported that $636 million are 


Part E awards and $142 million are medical benefits on those claims. 


While providing statistical information Mr. Kotsch explained the 


process: Cases are in DOL for initial development of the case, then 


passed along to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. After dose 


reconstructions are returned by NIOSH, DOL district offices recommend 


decisions. The recommended decision is provided to the claimant, who 


may waive objection or ask for a review and/or hearing. DOL Final 


Adjudication Branch renders a final decision. 


Mr. Kotsch reported that as of April 25th there were 27,710 cases with 


final decisions, with 10,073 approved and 17,097 denied. He then 


provided the statistics related to reasons for the denials. 


Mr. Kotsch stated there were 23,864 referrals to NIOSH and provided the 


statistical information for status of the referrals. He explained that 


some numbers don't agree with NIOSH's and he doesn't exactly know why. 


Mr. Kotsch continued by covering the statistics for the 1,183 cases 


withdrawn for SEC review, providing the statistical information for 


compensation in NIOSH dose reconstruction cases and SEC cases. 


The number of cases, dose reconstructions, approvals, and the amount of 


compensation paid relative to each of the sites to be discussed at the 


meeting was included in Mr. Kotsch's presentation. 


Mr. Kotsch remarked that NIOSH had told DOL and DOE that they had 


information from worker interviews regarding potential enriched uranium 


at the Chapman Value site prior to the covered period. He stated a 


letter was in the final signature phase asking NIOSH to provide the 


available documentation so DOL and DOE could determine whether the 


covered period should be expanded. 


He followed that he was asked to bring up the PEP for evaluation of 


insoluble plutonium compounds, which recently went up on the NIOSH web 


site. DOL determined there were about 1,000 cases in process that are 


potentially affected, and the decision had been made to remand those to 


NIOSH for a rework. He added that another 7,000 claims previously 


denied were potentially affected, and DOL would work with NIOSH to get 


each case evaluated by NIOSH. Mr. Kotsch explained that on the PERs 


6
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


and PEPs DOL will develop a bulletin to implement the impact in the 


field, then send those back for reworks. He observed that is the shape 


of things to come, a source of recurring work for both NIOSH and DOL. 


Discussion Points: 


#Clarification as to whether the $97 million paid on added SEC cases 

shown on the slide included the original SEC classes. 

* * * * *
 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REMARKS
 

Ms. Libby White, 


for Mr. Glenn Podonsky, 


Chief of Health, Safety and Security 


Department of Energy 


Ms. White commented that Mr. Podonsky wanted her to convey his high 


priority of ensuring the Department provides support to this program. 


Some activities toward that end were enumerated. They included: 


#Work to secure funding for continued response to requests in a timely 

manner; 

#Resolve issues regarding transmission of official use only 

information; 

#Working to make sure sites understand they can submit identified 

information and need to do so in a timely manner; 

#Working with New Mexico Congressional delegation, Los Alamos Lab, and 

Los Alamos Medical Center to plan for DOE to take possession of 

records; 

#Working with Hantavirus expert on decontamination protocol; 


#Working on a radiation sampling plan utilizing plans used in the past. 


Ms. White mentioned that Mound records buried at Los Alamos are a 


concern. She said there is no detailed index of the records and so it 


is not known with certainty if there are critical records for which 


copies are not accessible from other locations. 


In closing Ms. White reiterated DOE's commitment to the program and the 


workers served by the program. 


Discussion Points: 


#Is there is a formal Memorandum of Understating in place where the 

parties have agreed to delineated roles pertaining to the Los 

7
 
 

Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Alamos records; 

#A draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Medical Center and DOE 

hasn't been finalized due to the question of where the review of 

the records will be done; 

#Can individual claimants get a hold placed on the records; 

#If not, after DOE takes possession an individual would be able to make 

records requests; 

#Whether the Mound records are going to be uncovered; 

#Until now the Department of Labor has not taken an active role and 

there will be a need for their assistance in notifying claimants 


on their rights. 


* * * * *
 

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, 


Subcommittee Chair
 

Mr. Griffon advised that the subcommittee had passed two motions 


unanimously and he was bringing them to the Board for consideration. 


After an explanation of DR guidelines and the motion regarding them, 


Mr. Griffon read the motion into the record. 


Dr. Ziemer reminded the Board that a formal recommendation from a 


committee did not require a second and was on the floor for discussion 


and action. 


Discussion Points: 


#The term "DR" should be spelled out as "dose reconstruction" on the 

permanent record; 

#Are there impediments to NIOSH implementation; 

#The guides are contractor-prepared instructions to contractor 

employees, but it doesn't sound onerous. 

The motion carried unanimously. 


* * *
 

Following a brief explanation, Mr. Griffon read the motion regarding 


blind reviews into the record. 


Indicating this motion does not require a second, Dr. Ziemer opened the 


motion for discussion. 


8
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Discussion Points: 


#What information will the Board and SC&A would have since they would 

not have the claimant database; 

#The same information which had been available to the original dose 

reconstructor would be available, along with the library of tools. 


The motion carried unanimously.
 

The wording of the motions from the Subcommittee are included in the 


Subcommittee minutes and incorporated herein by reference. 


* * *
 

Mr. Griffon reported that the fourth and fifth sets of cases were still 


in the resolution phase. He noted that in the fourth set there are 


some cases where NIOSH has agreed to provide more detailed written 


responses; and in the fifth set SC&A findings and NIOSH's responses are 


a first crack at resolution. Mr. Griffon stated he hoped to close out 


both the fourth and fifth sets by the next subcommittee meeting. 


On the eighth set Mr. Griffon explained NIOSH had generated two 


spreadsheets, one full internal and external and the other random 


selections, from which the subcommittee had selected 43 cases. They 


are proposing, with Board agreement, to ask that NIOSH provide more 


detailed information on those cases, from which 32 cases would then be 


selected during the Advisory Board phone call on June 12th. 


Suggesting it might be helpful for the Board to understand the 


subcommittee rationale for the selections, Ms. Wanda Munn pointed out 


that statistics from the contractor had shown the Board is off their 


goals previously set for themselves. There are shortages in review of 


POC's between 45 and 50 percent, and for work periods beginning in the 


'60s, '70s and '80s, so they were looking primarily at these items. 


Dr. Wade reminded the Board 32 reviews were needed to complete SC&A's 


60 for FY '07, with blind reviews were over and above that. The 


expectation is that during the Board call on June 12th the selection 


will be finalized and SC&A will have their 60 for the year. 


There followed a discussion of blind reviews and their selection with 


no resolution of the question. Dr. Wade pointed out the issue could be 


discussed again on June 12th, moving toward selection of blind cases at 


the July meeting. 


* * * * *
 

9
 
 

Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Working Group Reports
 

Dr. James Lockey, Chair
 

Workgroup on Non-qualifying SEC Petitions
 

Dr. Lockey reported that the working group met on November 9th and on 


March 28th, and that the group's findings and recommendations had been 


finalized. The recommendations are to make the process more accessible 


and user friendly to the population being served. 


Dr. Ziemer confirmed Board members had a copy of the report, offering a 


reminder that this comes as a recommendation from a workgroup and 


constitutes a motion for approval. He asked if the Board wished to 


hear all the individual recommendations, or question on specific 


points. 


Dr. Ziemer sought and received confirmation from NIOSH that the 


recommendations are not so difficult they won't to be able to implement 


them. In fact, NIOSH offered their agreement with the recommendations 


and remarked they are already being implemented. 


As Chair Dr. Ziemer asked the Board to endorse the workgroup's 


recommendations by an affirmative vote. 


The motion carried by unanimous vote.
 

Dr. Ziemer thanked the group and declared their work done. 


* * *
 

Robert Presley, Chair 


Workgroup on Nevada Test Site
 

Mr. Presley reported that the workgroup had met twice sent the last 


Board meeting, once in person and then on a conference call. He stated 


they were in the process of grouping some of the issues into subgroups. 


He continued SC&A had agreed with NIOSH's presentation on the 


resuspension model, with a few modifications. There had been an 


ongoing problem with people not wearing badges, which Mr. Presley
 

indicated the workgroup understood to be a site-wide problem which 


would be dealt with as a site-by-site issue. He also mentioned there 


was a problem getting interviews passed to SC&A and back. 


* * *
 

10
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Mr. Mike Gibson, Chair
 

Workgroup on Savannah River Site site profile
 

Mr. Gibson reported the group had not had other meetings as they were 


waiting for notes taken during the classified records examination to be 


returned after review by the classifier. Mr. Griffon added that it was 


apparent the database seen was not the one they thought they were going 


to see. He said it was not a completely successful trip so there is a 


path forward sorting out the concern over the database. 


Dr. Ziemer asked whether this is going to be an ongoing problem with 


the Savannah River Site with clarification that another trip might be 


needed, with a limited additional classified review. 


* * *
 

Dr. James Lockey, Chair
 

Workgroup on Conflict of Interest Policy
 

Dr. Lockey reported that the workgroup had its first meeting scheduled 


for May 11th. 


Dr. Wade observed that the Board has procedures for dealing with 


members who have conflicts, but has not dealt with whether a conflicted 


member can be on a workgroup related to the site. He said it might be 


something for this workgroup to look at. 


* * *
 

Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair
 

Workgroup on Procedures Review
 

Ms. Munn reported that her group had not yet met, but expect to do so 


by early June. 


* * * * *
 

Comments from Senator Barack Obama (via telephone)
 

Senator Obama reminded the meeting that he had expressed support for 


the Dow Chemical workers in Madison, Illinois to the Board in 


September. He continued that his office, as well as that of 


Congressman John Shimkus and other members of the Illinois delegation 


and the Southern Illinois Workers group, had invested hundreds of hours 


of investigation into what went on at the Dow plant. He commended 


NIOSH for recommending to the Board that the workers should be 


11
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


compensated, and urged the Board to approve the Dow SEC petition 


without delay. 


He further urged the Board to extend the coverage period from 1957 


through 1960, to 1957 through 1998, indicating that the Department of 


Energy had produced no document to establish why the covered facility 


description was drawn the way it is. 


He added he wished to touch on the same issue he addressed in December 


at Naperville, that of timeliness. He hoped for changes that provide 


closure to workers as quickly as possible. 


* * * * *


 Working Group Reports (continued)
 

Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair
 

Workgroup on Blockson Chemical SEC
 

Ms. Munn pointed out that the site profile was withdrawn for revision 


and that the working group could not continue until the document was in 


hand for SC&A review. Dr. Neton added that the site profile was in 


draft form and should be ready for release in a week or so. Ms. Munn
 

indicated the working group would convene as soon as the document was 


in hand, and SC&A had promised a very rapid review turnaround. 


* * *
 

Mr. Brad Clawson, Chair
 

Workgroup on Fernald site profile and SEC petition
 

Mr. Clawson reported that since this workgroup was expanded to include 


review of an SEC petition, SC&A had created a new matrix which NIOSH 


has not yet been able to review. He asserted that as soon as they had, 


the working group would convene. 


* * *
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair 


Workgroup on the LANL site profile and SEC petition
 

Mr. Griffon stated that this workgroup had yet to convene, but expected 


to meet in May or June. 


* * *
 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler, Chair
 

12
 
 

Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Workgroup on the Linde Ceramics site profile
 

Dr. Roessler reported her working group had met March 26th. She said 


the biggest item discussed had been 700 newly-found bioassays. She 


continued that NIOSH and ORAU would work with these to develop a new 


exposure model. NIOSH and ORAU will also look at the use of a 


geometric mean distribution versus the 95th percentile values. She 


indicated she was not sure there could be another working group meeting 


before the next Board meeting. 


* * *
 

Mr. Mike Gibson, Chair 


Workgroup on Worker Outreach
 

Mr. Gibson reported that this working group had not yet scheduled a 


meeting. 


A discussion followed concerning potential workgroup efforts. 


#The group charter was open-ended but included review of the existing 

outreach program, worker input into site profiles, and whether the 

input impacted site profiles and dose reconstruction processes; 

#It's important for this group to meet quickly, as this task could be a 

real challenge relative to not only what is being done but what 

difference it is making is being reviewed; 

#A starting point might be the database on the NIOSH web site which 

contains worker outreach comments and resolutions; 

#The challenge is to do some brainstorming and set forth a road map on 

how to go about the task as a first step. 

* * * * *
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

Dr. Ziemer opened the public comment period by announcing that it was 


being videotaped by CBS and the Denver Post On-Line. After introducing 


various Congressional staffers present, he explained the purpose of the 


Advisory Board. Dr. Ziemer emphasized the Board is advisory and they 


make no determinations on dose reconstructions or SEC petitions, but 


their input merely informs their advice to the Secretary of HHS. He 


added the members do not work for any agency, but are appointed by the 


President of the United States. 


As explanation for why the Board had recently established a 10-minute 


time limit for comments from individual members of the public, Dr. 


Ziemer noted the agenda set aside the hour between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. 


13
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


for that purpose, yet there were 30 people wishing to speak. He 


committed the Board to staying to hear everyone, but asked the public 


to stay to the end, as well, and to be cognizant of others. 


The comments of individual speakers can be found in their entirety on 


the NIOSH/OCAS web site located at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. The 


following is a list of members of the public who spoke. 


Ms. Kay Barker, ANWAG; Dr. Charles Milne, claimant representative; Mr. 


Richard Olds, claimant; Ms. Terrie Barrie; ANWAG; Ms. Judy Padilla, 


claimant; Mr. Robert Carlson, claimant; Ms. Laura Schultz, claimant; 


Mr. Kevin Newby, claimant; Mr. Walter Mobley, claimant; Mr. Ron Buffo, 


claimant representative; Mr. Dennis Romero, claimant; Mr. Larry Pazier, 


survivor claimant; Mr. Larry Rands, claimant; Ms. Phillip (Cheryl) 


Meany, Rocky Flats worker and claimant representative; Mr. Ron Abila, 


claimant; Mr. Jack Weaver, Rocky Flats worker; Ms. Hannah Marschall, 


Rocky Flats worker; Ms. MaryAnn Rupp, survivor claimant; Ms. Yvonne 


Garrimore, survivor claimant; Mr. Don Sabec, claimant; Mr. Michael 


Logan, claimant; Ms. Cheryl Hewitt-Ballou, claimant representative; Ms. 


Diane Jensen, claimant; Mr. Dennis Vigal, claimant; Mr. Jerry Mobley, 


claimant; Ms. Liz. Huebner, claimant; Mr. Henry Mosley, claimant; Ms. 


Donna Quinlan, survivor claimant; Mr. Lessie Britton, claimant; Mr. 


Richard Gaffney, Rocky Flats worker; Ms. Margaret Ruttenber, research 


scientist; Ms. Joan Norman, claimant; Ms. Marie Bowie, survivor 

claimant. 

* * * * * 

With no further business to come before the Board, the day's 


meeting concluded at 9:00 p.m.
 

* * * * *
 

Thursday, May 3, 2007
 

Dr. Ziemer opened the second day of the meeting by asking participants 


to register their attendance, and reminders of documents available in 


the room including the agenda and Rocky Flats-related materials. He 


announced there were a number of SEC petitions to deal with and copies 


of those are available as well. 


Dr. Wade joined in the welcome, announcing that Board member Ms. Josie 


Beach was conflicted with regard to the Rocky Flats petition and would 


remain seated in the audience during the Board's deliberation on that 


issue. 


The planned schedule, as outlined by Dr. Ziemer, is a presentation by 


14
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


NIOSH on the petition evaluation report, following which the 


petitioners will make statements. There will be opportunity for 


members from the Congressional delegations to comment, and a report 


from the Board working group, following which the Board will deliberate 


on the material. He reminded the assembly that the Board's final 


product is a recommendation to the Secretary of HHS and that the Board 


does not determine whether there will be a class added to the SEC. It 


simply makes a recommendation, the Secretary passes along or makes an 


official recommendation to Congress, and Congress ultimately makes the 


decision in the process. 


* * * * *
 

ROCKY FLATS SEC PETITION
 

NIOSH Evaluation Update 


Dr. Brant Ulsh, 
 NIOSH
 

In an update for the benefit of those who may not remember and for 


Board members who are new since the original RF evaluation report a 


year ago, Dr. Ulsh explained the original proposed class included all 


United Steel Workers employed between 1952 and 2005, and NIOSH expanded 


it to all workers during those time periods. 


Dr. Ulsh noted that the primary source of information for dose 


reconstruction is dosimetry records, both internal and external. He 


announced there are over a half-million results in terms of internal 


dosimetry, primarily urinalysis. The number of external dosimetry 


results is more difficult to pin down. There are over 230,000 external 


dosimetry totals, but that number has to be multiplied by the number of 


exchange cycles, which translates to over a million individual external 


dosimetry results. 


NIOSH has access to an extensive records collection at the Department 


of Energy's Mountain View facility. They have interviews with former 


workers. To date NIOSH has received roughly 1,207 cases from DOL for 


dose reconstruction, of which they have completed 1,061. 


In reviewing his earlier presentation Dr. Ulsh noted that the original 


petition outlined seven bases, four of which qualified the petition for 


evaluation. Those were exposure to highly insoluble plutonium oxides, 


inability to link exposures to specific incidents, periods of 


inadequate monitoring, and that in earlier years there were people at 


risk of neutron exposure who were not monitored. 


15
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Since NIOSH presented the evaluation report in April of 2006, the 


Advisory Board referred the matter to a working group which embarked on 


an extensive, comprehensive investigation of the petitioners' concerns, 


the biggest of which was data integrity and completeness. Another was 


coworker data, radionuclides at RF other than uranium and plutonium, 


and early neutron doses. 


Dr. Ulsh explained the position NIOSH presented a year ago remains the 


same today, that they have the ability to conduct dose reconstructions 


with sufficient accuracy. Acknowledging the unpopularity of that 


conclusion, Dr. Ulsh remarked that at the end of the day they're faced 


with making compensation decisions based on an SEC designation or dose 


reconstruction, and what is owed to the claimants is an answer to the 


question of whether their cancer was a result of the radiation exposure 


received at Rocky Flats. Only through dose reconstruction can that 


question be answered. 


Discussion Points: 


#A number of cases have been cited where individuals have zeroes or 

minimal dose values which reflect the dose was below detectable 

limits, but there is some limit to the device and so the agency 

assigns a number above zero to account for the fact the dose may 

not really be zero; 

#RF workers allege they were told not to wear their badges, so is there 

a way to account for that on individual dose reconstructions if 

the person makes that allegation; 

#NIOSH has explained their logic as to why they don't believe that 

situation systematically compromises the ability to do dose 

reconstruction, but if they are aware of a situation where it 

might have happened, there are coworker distributions that could 

be applied if necessary; 

#Earlier a petitioner had mentioned the vaults were near the office 

area, so how is that handled; 

#If a worker was not monitored, there are methods in dose 

reconstruction to evaluate where the person worked, their 

potential for exposure, and there is coworker data available to 

assign the 50th percentile if they were exposed intermittently or 

the 95th percentile if they were routinely exposed to radiation; 

#A million individual results were mentioned and the question was 

raised as to how many individuals were employed at RF between 1952 

and 2005, and how many should have been monitored; 

#The million monitoring results to how many monitoring records per 

employee; 

#What forms the basis for determining when employees should and should 

not have been monitored; 

16
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


#A clarification that coworker data is not the substitution of one 

coworker's information for that of one who has no information, but 

rather a specified percentile (50th or 95th) of all the workers 

who were monitored on site; 

#How NIOSH makes the determination of when exposure may have occurred; 

#How NIOSH accounts for exposures to mixtures of radionuclides when the 

dosimetry is for only one; 

#How accurate are the job cards being used to reflect a person's job 

history; 

#How NIOSH handles some of the trades or guards who may have been 

assigned to a particular area or building, yet the nature of their 

work could cause them to be moved around. 

* * * 


 Petitioner Response
 

Ms. Jennifer Thompson, 


Petition Spokesperson
 

Ms. Thompson announced Mr. Tony DeMaiori, former president of the Steel 


Workers and primary agent for the petition, is working out of town and 


not available for the meeting. Ms. Thompson provided background on her 


work history at Rocky Flats beginning in 1991. She thanked the Board, 


the community and the Colorado Congressional delegation for their work 


and support. 


Ms. Thompson contended the process itself is not feasible and, even if 


the science were perfect, the process does not deliver timely, accurate 


dose reconstructions. She indicated the major points she would address 


were timeliness, fairness, feasibility, the law, and what is the right 


thing. 


Having reiterated the primary factors of the petition, Ms. Thompson 


asserted that while the law required NIOSH meet certain deadlines, they 


failed to do so throughout the process. The petitioners, however, were 


required to meet all of their deadlines or run the risk of having the 


petition thrown out. Ms. Thompson asserted records retrieval has been 


difficult for workers, severely hindering their ability to defend their 


case during the claim process. Ms. Thompson reported that members of 


the Congressional delegation have four times asked NIOSH to grant the 


petition a fair and timely review, but have been unsuccessful in 


securing that. 


Ms. Beach's exclusion from deliberations as a conflicted member of the 


Board was contested by Ms. Thompson in that NIOSH had expanded the 


17
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


class so that it is no longer a steel worker petition. She claimed a 


double standard on conflict of interest, preventing members of the 


Board from participation but relying on experts with conflicts of 


interest. 


Ms. Thompson discussed the fact that dose reconstruction has been 


called an inexact science, noting not all people doing dose 


reconstructions have degrees in health physics. She asserted a belief 


that the process leads to a situation of non-feasibility. 


Ms. Thompson cited another claimant who was denied three times and then 


finally had a claim approved based on inaccurate records because he 


kept at it. She contended other workers haven't had the financial or 


physical strength to continue the process. 


Raising the issue of high-fired oxides, Ms. Thompson discussed why the 


petitioners do not believe the issue has been resolved. She cited 


findings from SC&A reviews and expressed concerns about neutron dose, 


missing records, zeroes, gaps in internal dose data, adequacy of the 


coworker model, thorium dose reconstruction ability, lack of 


independent verification on use of the Neutron Dose Reconstruction 


Project (NDRP), perceived errors in the site profile, and the effect of 


the radioactive cocktail of plutonium in combination with chemical 


exposure. 


Ms. Thompson asserted that continuing work by the working group, 


unresolved issues, changes in the site profile, new Technical 


Information Bulletins, and other changes are indications that it is not 


feasible to accurately reconstruct dose and, for that reason, the 


petition should be granted. 


* * *
 

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar
 

Senator Salazar addressed the Board by telephone, commending the Board 


for its work and expressing his support for approval of the petition. 


He described the basis upon which Congress had created the Special 


Exposure Cohort, indicating that his call is to expressly request, as a 


U.S. Senator on behalf of his colleagues in Congress, the Board approve 


the petition. 


* * *
 

Mr. Jerry Harden
 

Mr. Harden, former president of United Steel Workers Local 8031 and 37­

18
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


year Rocky Flats employee, discussed the 38th anniversary of the 776 


building fire and the second anniversary of his initial appearance 


before the Board to plead for SEC status for Rocky Flats workers. He 


declared the program was well-intentioned, but mismanaged and has 


provided windfall profits for contractors, intellects, bureaucrats and 


attorneys while providing only token relief to the workers. 


Mr. Harden discussed the Uranium and Transuranium Registries and the 


donations of organ and tissue samples from DOE radiation workers, 


citing related examples of mismanagement of the Rocky Flats plant by 


DOE and contractors. 


* * *
 

Mr. Jack Weaver
 

A long-time Rocky Flats employee, Mr. Weaver spoke as a subject matter 


expert acknowledged by DOE and others. He provided his work history at 


Rocky Flats and discussed his training and the lack of protection or 


explanation of a need for protection, the chemicals worked with and 


inhaled because of the lack of respiratory protection or monitoring. 


He discussed film badges, change frequency, the fire in 1969. 


Mr. Weaver described the full-face respirators at that time were old 


World War II gas masks with particulate filters. He remarked on the 


materials processed and the amount of material, discussing americium 


and the separation process. 


Mr. Weaver explained that in August following the May fire, he was 


informed he was over the five rem limit for exposure and after that he 


had a body count every six months and a urinalysis every six weeks, 


every one of which came back high in plutonium and americium, as it 


would still do today. 


Commenting that there were great people who worked at Rocky Flats and 


did a wonderful job maintaining the integrity of the armed services so 


the country could stay free, Mr. Weaver declared it a shame that those 


people have not been treated with the dignity they deserve. He asked 


that the Board listen to all the presentations and comments, and vote 


in favor of approval of the petition. 


* * *
 

Mr. Bill Brady
 

Mr. Brady, law professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of 


Law, represents cancer victims and others exposed to toxic substances. 


19
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Mr. Brady spoke of one of his clients, the claimant Charlie Wolf, 


describing Mr. Wolf's claims and types of cancers for which he had been 


denied three times, providing Mr. Wolf's educational background and 


work history. Holding a master's degree in nuclear engineering, Mr. 


Brady reported Mr. Wolf had worked at Savannah River, Rocky Flats and 


Fernald as a project engineer manufacturing plutonium triggers. 


Mr. Brady described how a review of Mr. Wolf's employment records had 


disclosed errors such as showing him still employed at one facility 


three years after he'd left. Looking at other records Mr. Brady
 

reported he found numerous calculation errors, mathematical errors, and 


chemicals that had never been factored into Mr. Wolf's dose 


reconstruction. He discussed Mr. Wolf's exposure potential and the 


dosimetry types and placement, finally resulting in a hearing in front 


of the DOL Final Adjudication Board. Mr. Brady read into the record a 


portion of the finding from that hearing. 


Mr. Brady remarked that risk assessment and causation conclusions, when 


relying on irrelevant, irrational, inaccurate evidence, is little more 


than junk science, likening it to the contemporary phrase of garbage 


in/garbage out. 


* * *
 

Ms. Michelle Dobrovolny
 

Ms. Dobrovolny commented she was 42 years old, sick, and had been 


denied six times. She had watched many of her family members who'd 


worked at Rocky Flats die one after another, and currently has a 


brother sick with berylliosis. 


Remarking that everything she felt needed to be covered had been 


covered by others, Ms. Dobrovolny wanted to remind the Board as they 


made their decision that it was going to affect those people who had 


died, those in the process of dying and those who may face those same 


consequences in the future. She observed that sometimes the 


calculations of the smartest people don't apply, but that it's simple 


common sense. 


* * *
 

Mr. Mark Danhauer
 

Mr. Danhauer explained he started working at Rocky Flats in early 2002, 


worked a year, and shortly thereafter went into kidney failure and 


found he had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Remarking he was 41 years old and 


totally disabled, Mr. Danhauer described he had so much chronic pain 


20
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


nobody can figure out what to give him anymore. He spoke of the 


financial devastation of his continued severe illness, and the 


emotional devastation of being unable to provide for his family and 


being supported by his wife. He asked the Board to realize that this 


affects so many people, even down to the grandchildren. 


* * * 


Ms. Thompson thanked the Board again and asked that they consider the 


law, ignore the politics, look into their hearts and do the right thing 


by approving the petition. 


* * * 


Congressional Delegation Comments
 

Ms. Jeanette Alberg, 


Senator Wayne Allard's staff 


Mr. David Hiller, 


Senator Ken Salazar's staff
 

Ms. Alberg read into the record the first portion of a letter from the 


Colorado Congressional delegation. She noted that all nine members of 


the delegation had signed onto the letter, stressing the bipartisan 


aspect, because the decision is not about politics but about being fair 


to the people of Rocky Flats. 


Mr. Hiller read the conclusion of the letter, which is available in its 


entirety on the NIOSH/OCAS web site, www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


* * *
 

Ms. Carolyn Boller, 


Congressman Mark Udall's staff
 

Ms. Boller commented on having had the honor of working with Rocky 


Flats workers for 15 out of the last 20 years. She explained she's 


heard all the stories, has heard from DOE and site managers, who all 


confirm there are no records. She urged that the full petition be 

granted. 

* * * 

Mr. Jason Thielman, 


Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's staff 


Mr. Thielman, speaking on behalf of the Congresswoman, requested that 


21
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


the petition be approved. The Congresswoman had reminded him that the 


workers of Rocky Flats had put their health on the line for the 


security of the nation. He expressed his belief that the substance of 


the law demands these people and their families be treated with the 


respect they deserve for their commitment and dedication to the 


country. 


* * *
 

Mr. Bill Holer, 


Congressman Ed Perlmutter's staff 


Mr. Holer addressed the assembly, explaining that while he didn't have 


the history of some of his colleagues, he had participated in several 


workgroup meetings and was impressed with the quality and 


professionalism. He noted that the Congressman was in full support of 


the recommendation in the delegation letter and, since taking office, 


had worked closely with several Rocky Flats workers seeking relief 


under the provisions of EEOICPA. 


* * *
 

Ms. Erin Minks, 


Senator Ken Salazar's staff
 

Ms. Minks spoke on behalf of other Congressional aides tasked with 


working with their constituents during these processes, and thanked the 


Board and working group members for working with them as they 


participated and attempted to understand the process and interpret for 


their constituents in the audience. She commented that, having worked 


as a caseworker with members of the audience, she has learned there are 


different layers to the story of the site, different chapters, 


different patterns of monitoring and this program needs to have that 


affirmation to go forward to substantiate what the petitioners are 


talking about. 


Acknowledging there is no easy answer to the process, Ms. Minks
 

indicated that was understood. 


* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer offered the observation that one of the struggles of the 


Board is to address these same kinds of issues all over the country by 


this same group of 12 people. He explained what is seen at Rocky Flats 


is the same thing at Savannah River and Hanford and Oak Ridge Y-12, the 


same sorts of issues. He noted a lot of time and energy had been put 


in by the Rocky Flats workgroup as they tried to be diligent about 


22
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


determining what information exists because they are obligated by the 


law to look at that. The Board is also obligated to consider the issue 


of timeliness, and that is another struggle, realizing that the 


timeliness issue is countrywide and they're trying to deal with 


multiple sites simultaneously as they handle that issue. 


Another required responsibility is to look at the NIOSH evaluation 


report, and the Board receives help from their contractor so that they 


get a basically independent look at it. Dr. Ziemer reminded the 


assembly the Board consists of a mix of individuals, with not all being 


technical, and so they rely on that outside help. 


Dr. Ziemer explained that when that is done, not everybody will see 


things the same way. Then the Board has to face the issue of sorting 


out the views from NIOSH, the contractor, their own individual views, 


and the viewpoints of the constituents. 


He remarked that the workgroup has looked very hard at the NIOSH 


evaluation report and worked very closely with the contractor to 


evaluate the data at the site, its validity, extent in terms of 


adequacy, missing data, et cetera. Dr. Ziemer explained the Board 


recognizes this has taken time and the time issue comes as an 


overriding issue. At some point a decision has to be made, and that 


point is upon the Board now. 


* * *


 Workgroup Report
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, 


Workgroup Chair 


Mr. Griffon introduced the workgroup members, Ms. Wanda Munn, Mr. 


Robert Presley, and Mr. Mike Gibson. He reported there have been 12 


workgroup meetings, 19 conference calls, with technical calls in 


between workgroup meetings. Minutes were kept for all the calls and 


the workgroup agrees with NIOSH that they certainly looked into the 


issues as completely as they could. 


Through the course of the workgroup process a matrix was developed to 


follow their progress, and Mr. Griffon indicated there have been 


probably nine iterations of it with the final one, dated April 30, 


being available to the public. It detailed a total of 38 items, some 


with sub-items, and explained this was the workgroup's way of tracking 


what was being reviewed and whether it had been resolved. 


Mr. Griffon added several items fall into broad categories and today he 


23
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


would touch on those, not necessarily every matrix item. 


A list of approximately nine items covered by the workgroup was 


presented, not necessarily in any priority order. The issues he 


enumerated and discussed in detail were the question of super S, which 


was examined for an extended period of time; external and internal data 


completeness, which had a variety of subgroups, all of which were 


discussed in detail; the neutron data for 1952 through 1970; the 


Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project doses. Addressing the data 


reliability question, Mr. Griffon indicated his one slide did not do 


service for what the workgroup went through in looking at data 


reliability, or what the petitioners provided in terms of affidavits 


and testimony, even up through last night and this morning. 


Mr. Griffon noted the workgroup made every effort to capture all the 


issues, go through the petition and include all those in the matrix and 


cover those issues, many of which fall into the broad category of data 


reliability. He called attention to a block of issues on the matrix 


which are specific issues brought out in the examination of data 


reliability. 


A lot of time was spent on the issue of other radionuclides, and some 


of the significant ones were americium, neptunium and several others, 


resulting in a finding that NIOSH had sufficient individual records or 


other information that they could bound doses for those other 


radionuclides. Thorium, Mr. Griffon reported, was more of a problem 


and took longer in assessing. Although the workgroup has not seen 


proof of principle on the thorium reconstruction, but there is a strong 


impression that NIOSH does have process-specific data that would be 


applicable and could bound doses for those thorium workers. 


Internal dose has a coworker model. Based on the current claimant 


files there is only a limited number of individuals where the coworker 


model will be required to assess internal dose. The data completeness 


review supported that conclusion. There were urinalysis records the 


workgroup felt were sufficient to construct internal doses. 


The coworker model is based on a database called HIS-20. In the 


workgroup analysis they found some discrepancies between raw data and 


that electronic database, and NIOSH concedes that fact. However, they 


found all upper bound values they were able to check seemed to be in 


the database. NIOSH is acknowledging limitations and will rely only on 


the 95th percentile or the upper bound of the data used for coworker 


dose assessment. The workgroup considers that a reasonable approach. 


Adequacy of lung counting data was discussed, with the conclusion that 


NIOSH will not rely solely on lung counting data but will rather rely 


24
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


on urinalysis data. 


Specific questions were raised on the decommissioning and 


decontamination period, another situation where a Technical Information 


Bulletin was developed during the time the workgroup was meeting. This 


extended the coworker model out through the D&D period and a similar 


approach would be used regarding the 95th percentile. Given those two 


factors, the workgroup believes it is a bounding approach. 


The external gamma and external beta models the workgroup concluded 


seem adequate for reconstructing dose. Some of the models also talk 


about neutrons, and that issue has been separated out because there are 


some remaining concerns on the neutron monitoring. 


Mr. Griffon remarked that some of the conclusions are focused on the 


adequacy of the Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project data, which is a 


complicated issue to discuss. The issue was divided into different 


time periods because there were different factors to consider in 


specific time periods. He discussed the period 1952 through 1958, and 


Mr. Griffon described and explained the proposed method for dealing 


with the neutron dose for that time. 


He discussed the back-extrapolation of a ratio developed from 1959 is 


applied backwards into the earlier years and described the concerns 


about that approach. 


The next time period of 1959 through 1964 was discussed, which 


indicates many of the highest exposed workers were still not measured 


for neutron exposures. Many of those workers have notional doses 


assigned, and there are the same questions about the proposed ratios 


and whether it's appropriate for bounding the doses. The strength in 


this time period is that there is a lot more measurement data, and 


there are some independent measurements to support the ratios at that 


time. 


In the period 1965 through 1968, data supports a belief that most of 


the highest exposed workers seem to have been measured, there are film 


badge measurements. It still has the question of a building-wide 


neutron-to-photon ratio being assigned to individual workers, and there 


is still the question of whether that average is appropriate for every 


worker. 


The last subgroup is 1969 and 1970, which has a higher number of 


original films which were not recovered. The NDRP recovered films and 


reread a number of them for inclusion to do a better estimate of dose. 


For this period a lot of the original films were not or could not be 


recovered so there is more missing data and more notional dose. 


25
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


The one issue which was consistent through all those time periods was 


the use of the neutron-to-photon ratio, a building-specific central 


estimate of that ratio to estimate neutron doses. NIOSH has indicated 


they have within the NDRP data information that they could possibly use 


something other than a central estimate for the ratio, more like a 95th 


percentile approach. 


Dr. James Neton, Associate Director for Science in OCAS, joined the 


discussion to announce NIOSH has a total of 87,000 neutron measurements 


that were reread for NDRP, most of which are in the 1959 through 1970 


time period. He explained how NIOSH would be able to use that 


information to bound the neutron doses for workers in the 1959 forward 


time periods. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Was the April 30th report from SC&A made available to the petitioners 

and the general public; 

#Privacy Act issues with the report required a legal review; 

#The workgroup process carries an intent to get a report to all 

petitioners and Congressional staffers a month in advance of a 

meeting; 

#This report was published in two parts, the latest of which was 

completed in the last few days; 

#It isn't fair to the people trying to address the issues to not have 

the information, and there needs to be a better process for 

distributing reports; 

#The 52 cases sampled for a review of the data integrity issue hardly 

seems to be an adequate number; 

#The statistical sampling was a very broad-mesh sampling, not designed 

to reveal gaps in monitoring for individual radionuclides and not 

designed to yield statistically valid information on gaps for 

individual job types; 

#Although there were no systematic problems found, how are the 

individual discrepancies identified and handled; 

#There is no perfect method to detect those problems, but different 

approaches were used to examine whether there was a system-wide 

problem on all the concerns that were raised in open testimony or 

as part of the petition; 

#If a claimant raises an issue in an individual dose reconstruction, 

that might be treated differently; 

#In a case where a person doesn't have the information to support an 

26
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


in-depth investigation, it has to be taken on a case-by-case 


basis; 


#Will NIOSH follow its usual policy and go back and recalculate dose 

reconstructions for people with completed DRs who may be affected 

by changes in certain aspects of the dose reconstruction or site 

profile update; 

#Clarification of the areas where NIOSH has not demonstrated the 

ability to do adequate dose reconstructions; 

#NIOSH has not yet provided the workgroup a demonstration they can 

conduct dose reconstruction in the manner they believe is possible 

for both thorium and neutrons in the period 1959 through 1970, as 

well as the pre-1960 Building 81 uranium workers for external 

dose; 

#Does the workgroup have conclusions or a position on ability to 

reconstruct dose for the period beyond 1970. 

* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer outlined four Board's options: To accept or agree with the 


NIOSH evaluation; to disagree with the NIOSH evaluation and, in effect, 


state that doses cannot be reconstructed with sufficient accuracy and 


therefore recommend inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort. A third 


option would be to extend the process further to tie up some loose ends 


that clearly exist, but which may continue to occur; or the fourth 


option of subdividing the petition and saying part of this is 


straightforward and we feel an SEC inclusion is clear and part of it is 


not. He suggested the Board may want to consider it for a while and 


come back later prepared to make a motion. 


By Board consensus, Dr. Ziemer recessed deliberation to allow 


individual Board members an opportunity to collect their thoughts and 


continue afterward with deliberations on the Rocky Flats petition. He 


noted that the other agenda items would be adjusted accordingly. 


* * *
 

Before recommencing deliberations, Dr. Ziemer read into the record a 


hand-delivered letter from Colorado Governor Bill Ritter endorsing the 


letter from the Colorado Congressional delegation and supporting the 


Rocky Flats petition. That letter is available in its entirety on the 


NIOSH/OCAS web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


* * * 


A motion was made and seconded to approve the petition for 


people exposed to neutrons from 1952 through 1958, with a 


second recommendation to conduct further review on the three 


earlier issues of neutron exposure from 1959 to 1970, 


27
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


exposures in Building 81, and thorium and related nuclide 


exposures in some areas of the facility.
 

There was a clarification that, if the motion passed, the 


recommendation would be for the earlier group immediately and be framed 


in the standard language for the Secretary. The second part would 


result in a postponement for approximately a month in order to answer 


the questions and be ready to address those three issues at a meeting 


to be held in June. 


There was further clarification that the first part of the motion was 


relative to monitored or should have been monitored for neutron 


exposures. 


Discussion Points: 


#The Board has adopted a procedure of passing a motion in principle and 

then reviewing it over the evening and consulting with the 

Department of Labor as to how the issues might be adjudicated, 

which would be appropriate here; 

#A key workgroup argument was that there were few actual records 

available in the early time period just because few people were 

monitored for anything, so why specify neutron exposures; 

#If the vote is going to be delayed on the post-1958 cohort to ask for 

proof of principle from NIOSH, shouldn't directions be clear with 

respect to what the Board will and will not accept from NIOSH as 

proof of principle; 

#Should that not be a basic part of the motion; 

#Clarification that the workgroup did not find a deficiency with 

bioassay data for early time periods, but there was very little 

neutron data so the time period is targeted on neutrons; 

#This class would be restricted to individuals in certain locations for 

whom neutron monitoring should have been or was provided, but 

would not include others on the site during that period if they 

were not in identified areas; 

#It would help DOL in their adjudication for the location information 

to be as specific as possible; 

#The phraseology "monitored or should have been monitored" was a more 

workable approach in most instances for DOL than a building by 

building issue; 

#A proposal to offer a more fleshed-out motion tomorrow that would be 

more specific about the second part of the motion; 

#An opinion expressed that the motion should be more broad than 

specifying certain buildings because a lot of claimants are doing 

this on behalf of family members who have already passed on and 

28
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


they won't know the specifics of work areas; 

#An opinion expressed, speaking against the proposed motion, that NIOSH 

had had ample time to determine the scientific validity of the 

exposures, used people who are conflicted to put together the 

evaluation report and, in the spirit of the legislation, it's time 

to vote on the petition; 

#A call for the motion to be repeated; 

#Clarification of the issue surrounding Building 81 with exposure to 

thorium in certain areas; 

#A call for the availability of Board members to meet face-to-face on 

June 12 as specified in the motion, rather than a teleconference; 

#A need to have the information available to petitioners and all 

interested parties in advance of more than a day before the 

meeting; 

#NIOSH called for a clarification on the second portion of the motion 

for a better understanding of the product being requested on the 

three issues before they made a commitment about having a report 

finalized by the June 12 date; 

#Unless NIOSH knows what the Board wants, they would be reluctant to 

commit to a timetable and, unless it is spelled out, the Board has 

just added uncertainty to the system. 

Dr. Ziemer called for a sense of the Board in support of the motion to 


know whether to table the motion and get the wording defined for action 


the following day. 


By consensus, a vote was called on the motion, which carried 


by a margin of 7 to 3.
 

Dr. Ziemer announced refined wording will be in a form to go forward to 


the Secretary and will be presented tomorrow for a final review, and 


will recommend that the 1952 through 1958 time period class become part 


of the Special Exposure Cohort; further it will recommend proof of 


principle on the identified items be provided, basically within a 


month, and that the Board would commit to voting up or down on the rest 


of those time periods at that time. 


* * *
 

On behalf of the petitioners, Ms. Thompson expressed her 


dissatisfaction in that the petitioners wanted a vote on the petition 


as a whole, and remarked it is clear that the law is not being 


followed. She declared the delay unacceptable to the people who are 


dying and that this has gone on long enough. 


* * * 


29
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Dr. Ziemer announced that following the wording review tomorrow the 


Board will plan when they will meet again and make an effort to have 


the meeting again in Denver in one month. 


* * *
 

Mr. Harden spoke on behalf of the petitioners to make a request they 


have a chance to rebut the information presented today, and commenting 


that this has developed into a charade, observing that it's long 


overdue that "the intellects" be put in their places. 


* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer clarified for an unidentified member of the audience that 


the entire post-1958 period is open; the three issues on which the 


Board asked for additional clarification does not constitute a 


recommendation that they not be included. That will be voted on in a 


month. 


An observation was made that when the Act was passed it was a laudable 


effort to recognize and provide some compensation for people injured in 


the nuclear production industry, but it was a patched-together law. 


Over the years NIOSH, SC&A, the Board and petitioners have tried to 


work with the law, but there are parts that don't work. It has created 


conflict and frustration and is time-consuming. Parts of the law need 


to be streamlined and fixed. 


This is a bipartisan issue because plants were spread throughout the 


United States. It's understandable that people who worked side-by-side 


and whose probabilities of causation result in approval for one and 


denial of the other are frustrated and upset. But Congressional people 


need to step forward and represent the rest of the workers in the 


industry throughout the United States to streamline and update the law 


to make it user friendly. 


The Board and people in NIOSH and SC&A are doing everything they can to 


get the work done. They're constrained by a law that gives them 180 


days to do things that could take years, and it has caused conflict and 


needs to be changed. 


* * * * *
 

BETHLEHEM STEEL SEC PETITION 


NIOSH Evaluation Report
 

Dr. Sam Glover, 


NIOSH
 

30
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Dr. Glover presented the NIOSH evaluation report for SEC Petition 56 


concerning Bethlehem Steel. He described the facility, its location 


and numbers of employees, noting that at issue is only the facility at 


Lackawanna, New York, a rolling mill added in 1947. Dr. Glover 


provided photographs of the facility and rolling mill, discussed the 


time frame and Hanford's need to have metallic uranium rolled into rods 


which could be put into the reactor for plutonium production. 


Background leading up to an AEC contract with Bethlehem Steel to 


improve rolling pass schedules on a continuous rolling mill was 


described by Dr. Glover, as well as the goals of that program. 


Dr. Glover reported the petition was submitted in March of 2006 and 


qualified in August. The evaluation report was issued in February of 


2007. The petition requested a class definition of millwrights, 


welders, electricians, bricklayers, carpenters, all maintenance, 


testers, rollers, supervisors, crane operators, hookers, cleanup crews 


and grinders who worked in the 10-inch bar mill and blooming mill from 


years 1949 to 1952. 


NIOSH modified the class and evaluated all Atomic Weapons Employer 


personnel at the Bethlehem Steel operation who were monitored, or 


should have been monitored, for exposure to uranium during uranium 


rolling activities at the Bethlehem Steel Lackawanna, New York facility 


from January 1, 1949 to December 31, 1952. 


Dr. Glover reviewed the sources of available information for the 


evaluation process, which included site profile documents for Bethlehem 


Steel and Simonds Saw and Steel; Technical Information Bulletins, 


outreach and town hall meetings, telephone interviews with former 


workers, the site research database, documentation and evidence 


submitted by the petitioners, a site profile review, Board and working 


group meetings. He discussed the availability of dosimetry data and 


reported that the NIOSH/OCAS claims tracking system indicated there 


were 732 cases meeting the class definition which had been forwarded by 


the Department of Labor for dose reconstruction. There are completed 


dose reconstructions on 634 of those cases. 


The various bases for the petition were provided by Dr. Glover, 


approximately 13, which included that the amount of uranium rolling 


could not be done in a 10-hour day; work areas could not have been 


cleaned in one day; workers wore contaminated overalls, et cetera. 


Dr. Glover moved into a discussion of the radiological operations at 


the facility; where the material originated and what operations took 


place; documentation and interviews on practices. He discussed the 


31
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


rolling period, the air monitoring data, and then discussed similar 


information from Simonds Saw and Steel and how it was being used to 


supplement the information from Bethlehem Steel. 


Because there is no bioassay or external dosimetry data available for 


the facility, this is a modeled analysis. The Health and Safety 


Laboratory, and later Fernald, conducted air and surface radioactivity 


monitoring during various rolling activities and the data have been 


evaluated with the information collected at Simonds Saw and Steel for 


rollings in the '49 to '50 time period. 


Simonds Saw and Steel was one of the largest suppliers of rolled 


uranium for Hanford, and in October of '48 had not implemented 


recommended changes by the Health and Safety Laboratory. Air 


monitoring data occurred before they made changes and is available, and 


included additions of ducts and grading and other materials which makes 


the exposures higher than later on, so the Simonds data was used from 


one day, the October 27th, 1948 rolling. 


Dr. Glover discussed cobble cutters, ingestion, inhalation and 


ingestion during residual contamination, the basement area below the 


rollers, external sources of exposure, direct contact dose, residual 


contamination for external dose, contaminated clothing, occupational 


medical dose and the six sample dose reconstructions completed to show 


doses and probability of causation. They covered several cancer types, 


employment periods and cobble-cutting activities. 


NIOSH evaluated the petition using the guidelines established in 42 CFR 


83.13, and Dr. Glover explained the two-pronged test of feasibility and 


likelihood of health endangerment. NIOSH found the available 


monitoring records, process descriptions, and source term data are 


adequate to complete dose reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for 


the proposed class of employees, and the health endangerment 


determination is therefore not required. 


Discussion Points: 


#Clarification on a point in Mr. Elliott's presentation the previous 

day on the unusual appearance of the Bethlehem Steel distribution 


graph; 


#The legal basis for utilizing data from other sites. 

* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

Mr. Ed Walker
 

32
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Mr. Walker commented by telephone about the fact that he had worked 


there for 40 years and knew the conditions in the plant, and that NIOSH 


didn't realize what the workers went through. Mr. Walker questioned 


the use of surrogate data from Simonds Saw. 


Discussion Points: 


#Feasibility of not taking any action until the legality of surrogate 

data is discussed by the General Counsel's office; 

#That issue is on the agenda for the following day and there is no need 

to take action on this petition today. 


* * *


 Congressional Comments
 

A letter from the New York Congressional delegation was read into the 


record by Mr. Jason Broehm from CDC Washington. The letter was from 


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Charles Schumer, Representative 


Brian Higgins, Representative Thomas Reynolds and Representative Louise 


Slaughter urging approval of the petition for Bethlehem Steel. 


* * *
 

Congressman John Shimkus from Illinois made a telephone statement to 


the assembly in support of the Dow Madison SEC petition. He 


particularly addressed the validity and credibility of worker 


affidavits and the period for residual contamination through 1998. 


* * * * *
 

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY SEC PETITION 


NIOSH Evaluation Report
 

Dr. Gregory V. Macievic, 


Health Physicist, NIOSH/OCAS
 

Dr. Macievic reported the petition was submitted on behalf of a class 


of employees initially defined as workers of LANL working in all 


Technical Areas from 1943 to 1979. The number of claims for Energy 


employees potentially meeting the proposed class definition criteria is 


657. 


Dr. Macievic reiterated that the process is two-pronged, established by 


EEOICPA and incorporated into 42 CFR 83.13. The first issue is 


feasibility of estimating radiation dose of individuals within the 


33
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


class with sufficient accuracy, and the second is a reasonable 


likelihood that such dose may have endangered the health of members of 


the class. 


Noting that Los Alamos is unique in that areas of the site are 


production-like and others are laboratory-like, Dr. Macievic indicated 


there are over 75 Technical Areas which are primarily concerned with 


nuclear weapons development, testing and related activities. He 


outlined some of the biomedical studies, experimental applications, 


fission products studies, et cetera, and the covered employment period 


which begins in 1943 at the opening of the site and continues to the 


present. 


Dr. Macievic discussed the functional areas of activity relevant to the 


class ranging from weapons development and testing, reactor 


development, waste treatment and disposal, and residual contamination 


from strontium-90 RaLa post-July 1963. He enumerated the various 


radionuclides of concern, which included alpha doses, beta/gamma doses, 


and neutrons from plutonium production, operating reactors, criticality 


experiments, et cetera. 


Moving to the information available for dose reconstruction, Dr. 


Macievic summarized that routine monitoring provides the basis for 


external radiation exposures, though relevant data are not available 


from which an estimate of all radionuclide source terms can be 


developed. 


As to internal environmental exposures, no data were provided for years 


prior to 1970. There is information from 1970 to 1975, but no 


developed methodology exists. External environmental exposures are 


available through area film badge monitoring data post-1975. 


Dr. Macievic referred the Board to Table 7-10 of the evaluation report, 


which displayed the internal exposures to plutonium, uranium, tritium 


and polonium, which NIOSH believes can feasibly be reconstructed. 


A summary was presented of LANL data deficiencies, broken down by the 


periods 1943 to 1949, 1950 to 1969, 1970 to 1975, noting additionally 


that air sample data is not available for all years of operation and is 


deficient for fission products and some exotic radionuclides. Although 


new data has been found, it is intermittent and non-inclusive for all 


areas. 


Dr. Macievic observed that LANL required chest X-rays on an annual 


basis, which provides a basis for adequate reconstruction of medical 


dose using protocols from complex-wide TBDs. 


34
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


In an overview of the petition Dr. Macievic noted that the petition 


provided information and affidavit statements to support the 


petitioners' belief that accurate dose reconstruction over time is 


impossible for all workers at LANL working in all Tech Areas from 1943 


to 1975. That was based on insufficient data, records do not exist, 


and lack of bioassay data. The petition was qualified in August of 


2006. 


The NIOSH conclusions, which appeared on the previously-mentioned Table 


7-10, broke down the feasibility findings for the petition by source of 


exposure, whether reconstruction was feasible for internal and 


external, and by periods of time. The health endangerments conclusions 


were that NIOSH has determined members of the class were not exposed to 


radiation during a discrete incident likely to have involved levels of 


exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality 


incidents, but that some workers in the class may have accumulated 


chronic exposures sufficient to have endangered their health. 


Dr. Macievic also read the proposed class definition, which was for all 


employees of the DOE or DOE contractors or subcontractors who were 


monitored, or should have been monitored, for radiological exposures 


while working in operational Technical Areas with a history of 


radioactive material use at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for an 


aggregate of at least 250 work days during the period from March 15, 


1943 through December 31, 1975, or in combination with work days within 


the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 


in the SEC. 


Addressing a change from the wording on his slide, Dr. Macievic 


explained that it had excluded several Technical Areas, and NIOSH 


determined that in the past they had only designated areas for 


inclusion in a class definition. So the listing of the exclusions was 


removed and an addendum was made where all the Technical Areas included 


in the class are enumerated. This means any TA not listed could be 


looked at for potential inclusion in some other class or some other 


proposal to see if SEC is required. 


In its recommendation NIOSH finds it cannot reconstruct doses for 


members of the proposed class with sufficient accuracy for the period 


March 15, 1943 through December 31, 1975, and the likelihood for health 


endangerment exists. 


Dr. Macievic went on to discuss issues that are to be resolved in the 


revised site profile and will deal with mixed fission products, mixed 


activation products, a determination of processes associated with 


americium and the relationship with plutonium handling, and will 


include a further review of actinium-227, curium-244, neptunium-237, 


35
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


thorium-232 and 230, and protactinium-231. The recommendation is that 


the class in the petition time frame be added now rather than delay, 


and that NIOSH can reopen the petition or present an 83.14 


recommendation if further evaluation warrants. 


* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

Mrs. Harriet Ruiz
 

Ms. Ruiz spoke on behalf of the petitioners, thanking the Board and 


NIOSH for their work and for everything they do on behalf of SEC 


petitioners. She read into the record a letter from the Honorable Ben 


Lujan, Speaker of the New Mexico House, who is a petitioner with her. 


That letter is available in its entirety on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


* * *
 

Mr. Andrew Evaskovich
 

Mr. Evaskovich spoke as a petitioner, indicating he is a guard at LANL 


and a representative of the International Guards Union of America Local 


Number 79. He indicated certain Technical Areas needed to be evaluated 


to be included in the class, and showed a variety of photographs and 


maps, discussing technical reports that say radionuclides were in those 


areas. 


He discussed a major expansion of the Laboratory from 1951 to 1953, 


with the addition and construction of 14 Technical Areas. Mr. 


Evaskovich presented historical photos of areas as they changed. 


* * * 


 Congressional Comment
 

Mr. Jonathan Epstein, 


Senator Jeff Bingaman's staff
 

Mr. Epstein addressed the Board by telephone, thanking NIOSH for the 


excellent technical work they have done, but asked that everyone keep 


in mind the big picture of what Los Alamos did, the unique experiments. 


He observed that since all of this started in the early '40s time 


frame when much of the inhalation dose equipment wasn't available at 


the time, he felt NIOSH got it right. 


36
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


* * *
 

Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz, 


Congressman Tom Udall's staff 


Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz spoke to read into the record a statement 


from the Congressman thanking NIOSH and supporting the petition. That 


statement is available in its entirety on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


* * *
 

Additional Petitioner Response
 

Ms. Wallace (no first name given)
 

Ms. Wallace spoke by telephone endorsing the other speakers' comments. 


She also commented on the frustration of where DOL and NIOSH overlap, 


and the difficulty in figuring out who was in charge of what. 


* * *
 

Unidentified
 

This speaker expressed deep appreciation for the behind-the-scenes work 


with NIOSH and Mr. Elliott. 


* * *


 Board Discussion
 

Dr. Wade reported two Board members are conflicted on the LANL site. 


Mr. Phillip Schofield is already seated in the audience and the other, 


Dr. John Poston, was not in attendance. 


Discussion Points: 


#Clarification of Table 7-10 slide to the final conclusion slide; 

#This class is defined as it is because it cannot be distinguished 

which employees are exposed to specific radionuclides, they're 

over so many areas and time periods; 

#For certain individual cases there are specific radionuclides that can 

be reconstructed, but in general the complete dose for individuals 

in all areas cannot be reconstructed; 

#Why the cutoff at 1975; 

#The petition was submitted for a period up to 1975; 

37
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


#There are issues on the table after 1975 for timeliness and, to 

complete the petition through the time period requested, the 

evaluation was completed but has been left open and NIOSH has 

committed to evaluating those other issues past 1975; 

#The issues that should be resolved in the revised site profile are 

issues that continue beyond 1975; 

#Clarification of Table 7-8; 

#The degree of confidence in the information in the Table 7-10 on the 

time periods involved; 

#Clarification that the Technical Areas shown on the slide for the 

class definition are to be removed from the definition language. 

* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded to accept the NIOSH 


recommendation, with the final wording for submission to the 


Secretary to be approved during the following day's business. 


The motion carried unanimously.
 

* * * * *
 

W. R. GRACE SEC PETITION 


NIOSH Evaluation Report 


Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 


SEC Health Physics Team Leader 


NIOSH/OCAS 


Mr. Rutherford presented the evaluation report, explaining it had been 


submitted under Section 83.14 by a petitioner whose dose could not be 


reconstructed by NIOSH. The petition evaluation considered a class of 


workers similar to the petitioner. The evaluation process evaluated 


the questions of feasibility of dose reconstruction and likelihood of 


health endangerment to members of the class. 


Mr. Rutherford explained W. R. Grace was a contractor for the Atomic 


Energy Commission from 1958 to 1970, and was contracted to recover 


enriched uranium from uranium scrap. The AEC was the regulatory 


authority for the site, located in Erwin, Tennessee, from '58 through 


1974 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission becoming the regulatory 


authority in 1975. 


Operations began in 1957 involving radioactive material, with principal 


operations being conversion of high and low enriched uranium to a 


useful form to manufacture nuclear fuel, producing fuel consisting of 


38
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


uranium oxide mixed with plutonium and zirconium oxides. Mr. 


Rutherford outlined the radiological processes and radiological sources 


relevant to the class, and a summary of information available for dose 


reconstruction. This included the data capture attempts made to 


current operators, State of Tennessee, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 


DOE Germantown, et cetera. The data available included internal 


monitoring data, with Mr. Rutherford describing various information, 


and the external monitoring data. 


As a petition overview Mr. Rutherford noted that NIOSH was unable to 


obtain sufficient information to complete the dose reconstruction for 


an existing claim. In January of 2007 a claimant was notified his dose 


reconstruction would not be completed and was provided with a copy of 


SEC Petition Form A, which was submitted to NIOSH later in that same 


month. 


NIOSH has concluded that they lack monitoring, process, or source 


information sufficient to estimate internal radiation doses from 


thorium exposures for the period of January 1, 1958 through December 


31, 1970. NIOSH believes there is sufficient information to estimate 


internal dose from uranium and plutonium, and occupational external 


exposures, including medical, for that period. 


Assessing the health endangerment issue, NIOSH determined it is not 


feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy internal radiation doses 


and that the health of the covered employees may have been endangered. 


Evidence indicates workers in the class may have accumulated intakes 


of thorium during the covered period. 


The proposed class definition was presented by Mr. Rutherford, along 


with the recommendation for inclusion of this class of employees into 


the Special Exposure Cohort. 


Discussion Points: 


#Class definition talks about workers monitored or should have been 

monitored for thorium in specific buildings. Does that include 

all workers in those buildings or only those with potential for 

being exposed to thorium. 

* * * 


A motion was made and seconded that a recommendation be made 


to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that he accept 


the proposed class definition as stated in the presentation 


today, with the refined official wording to be considered 


tomorrow.
 

39
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


The motion was open for discussion. 


#Clarification on a question of the thorium operations; 


#How large is the proposed cohort; 


#How many claims have been received; 


#Does the petition exclude plutonium workers in those buildings. 


* * *
 

The motion carried unanimously. 


* * * * *
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

Dr. Ziemer reiterated the purpose of the Board, that it only provides 


an opinion on SEC petitions. He explained Board members are not 


employed by any agency, and reminded the participants of the 10-minute 


limit for public comment. 


The comments of individual speakers can be found in their entirety on 


the NIOSH/OCAS web site located at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. The 


following is a list of members of the public who spoke. 


Mr. Cliff DelForge, Rocky Flats worker; Dr. Dan McKeel, SINuW; Mr. Stan 


Beitscher, claimant; Mr. Lynn Earley; Ms. LeeAnn Bayes, survivor. 


* * * * *
 

With no further business to come before the Board, the day's 


meeting was concluded at 8:35 p.m. 


* * * * *
 

Friday, May 4, 2007
 

Dr. Ziemer called to order the third day of the meeting, indicating 


some items were being carried over from the previous day's agenda and 


would be addressed first. Those items were the Dow Chemical Madison 


and Chapman Valve SEC petitions. 


Dr. Wade added his welcome, and cautioned about losing Board members 


for a quorum due to travel constraints. He asked that Board members 


keep that issue in mind and let him know if a problem arose relative to 


their need to leave the meeting. 


* * * * *
 

40
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY (MADISON SITE) SEC PETITION
 

NIOSH Evaluation Report Update
 

Mr. Stu Hinnefeld, NIOSH 


Technical Program Manager
 

Mr. Hinnefeld presented an update on the evaluation report, including 


some information received since the report had been prepared. He noted 


this is an 83.14 petition, a site where NIOSH determined there was some 


aspect of the radiation dose they did not have sufficient information 


to reconstruct, and they had proceeded along the pathway of the 83.14 


evaluation. He explained this included the two-pronged test of 


feasibility and likelihood of health endangerment and was followed as 


usual. 


Mr. Hinnefeld explained the site location and the work undertaken there 


for the AEC as a subcontractor for Mallinckrodt Chemical Works. This 


was the extrusion of uranium metal in 1957 and 1958, and the 


straightening of uranium metal rods in 1959 and 1960. 


Also explained was the plant's routine handling of thorium, which was 


incorporated into their commercial metal alloy products. The plant was 


ordinarily engaged in metal production, making magnesium and aluminum 


alloys as their main line of business. 


Effects of how the 2005 Defense Authorization Act had amended EEOICPA 


relative to this issue were described by Mr. Hinnefeld. It added a 


second category to the definition of "AWE employee" and defined 


"radiation dose" for this added category. 


Summarizing information available for dose reconstruction, Mr. 


Hinnefeld acknowledged that no individual external monitoring results 


are available; no in vitro or in vivo bioassay results are available 


for either uranium or thorium; a 1957 contract describes the extrusion 


operation to be 12 cycles, each expected to require 28 hours of effort. 


He went on to describe documents from FUSRAP relative to rod-


straightening; a 1957 paper by the Dow Radiation Safety Officer 


relative to thorium, with some air sample results and a few radiation 


measurements, and other materials. 


Data capture attempts discussed by Mr. Hinnefeld included the NRC, DOE 


Germantown, worker outreach and requests to Dow Chemical, among others. 


In an overview of the petition Mr. Hinnefeld explained that NIOSH was 


unable to obtain sufficient information to complete the dose 


reconstruction for an existing claim, and in November 2006 a claimant 


41
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


was notified and provided a copy of SEC Petition Form A, which was 


returned to NIOSH later that month. 


In January 2007 NIOSH began communication with Dow requesting records 


from the covered period. This continued by mail, telephone and e-mail, 


providing whatever specificity Dow requested to aid their search. In 


early April Dow indicated their inspection effort was larger than 


anticipated and not expected to be complete until the end of the month. 


Rather than extend the delay, NIOSH prepared the evaluation report with 


available data based on two things. One, Dow had indicated they had no 


personal monitoring information. The second was that two documents 


received from NRC contained information which led NIOSH to believe any 


additional discoveries by Dow would not improve its ability to perform 


dose reconstructions for internal thorium exposure. 


On April 28 Dow delivered responsive documents providing some 


additional air sample results and several additional external radiation 


readings. This will require revision of the evaluation report at 


several points, which Mr. Hinnefeld enumerated and explained. However, 


preliminary evaluation of the new information has not caused NIOSH to 


change its original conclusion. 


NIOSH still believes it is not feasible to reconstruct internal doses 


due to thorium exposure, and it is unlikely to have sufficient 


information for estimating the contribution of thorium to external 


doses, which are part of the EEOICPA dose during the contract period of 


January 1, 1957 through December 31, 1960. 


Mr. Hinnefeld went on to describe and explain NIOSH's ability to 


reconstruct uranium dose as well as occupational medical dose. The 


health endangerment issue was discussed and a proposed class definition 


was provided, as follows: All Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees 


who were monitored, or should have been monitored, for exposure to 


thorium radionuclides while working at the Dow Chemical Company site in 


Madison, Illinois for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 


work days from January 1, 1957 through December 31, 1960, or in 


combination with work days within the parameters established for one or 


more other classes of employees in the SEC. 


The NIOSH recommendation presented by Mr. Hinnefeld is that for the 


period January 1, 1957 through December 31, 1960 NIOSH finds that 


radiation dose estimates cannot be reconstructed for compensation 


purposes. Some members of the class may have accumulated chronic 


exposures sufficient to endanger their health. 


* * *
 

42
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


 Petitioner Response
 

Dr. Dan McKeel, 


Southern Illinois Nuclear Workers
 

Dr. McKeel contended that an overriding consideration is that the 


petitioners were hampered by lack of access to primary site records. 


He noted five overarching issues about the DOW SEC, first of which is 


timeliness. He criticized the evaluation report itself, for which the 


petitioners developed 22 specific concerns, translated into 14 


questions presented to NIOSH. 


Further expressing his dissatisfaction with the process, Dr. McKeel
 

asserted the affidavit testimony regarding working relationship between 


the AEC, Rocky Flats and Dow Madison site for thorium alloys was 


overlooked. 


Other issues were NIOSH's failure to extend the covered period to 


include the uranium residual period, the Dow Madison relationships with 


the Atomic Energy Commission, thorium production and thorium residual 


contamination. A final point asserted was extreme harm to the workers, 


including beryllium exposure, at the Dow Madison plant. 


Dr. McKeel offered a PowerPoint presentation and discussed two DOE 


major databases which characterize EEOICPA sites. He remarked on 


facility description, a purchase order with an AEC contract number, and 


contended Dow Madison was supplying magnesium/thorium alloys through 


Mallinckrodt Chemical Works for the AEC. He concluded by asserting 


that the Dow Madison class should be extended from 1957 through 1960 to 


1957 through 1998 to include the uranium production and residual 


contamination periods. 


* * *


 Congressional Comments
 

Ms. Deb Detmers, 


Congressman John Shimkus's staff
 

Ms. Detmers read into the record a letter from the office of 


Congressman Jerry Costello supporting approval of the Dow Madison 


petition. 


Speaking for herself, Ms. Detmers discussed her involvement with the 


claimants and petitioners for six years now working with them. She 


asked the Board not dismiss the petition for lack of documentation on 


43

Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


the thorium issue, and urged the Board to extend the class to include 


the residual contamination period through 1998. 


* * *
 

Mr. Robert Stephan, 


Senator Barack Obama's staff
 

Mr. Stephan first read into the record a statement from Senator Dick 


Durbin's office requesting that the class be expanded to include the 


residual contamination period through 1998. 


On behalf of Senator Obama, he discussed the residual contamination 


period and that there is a belief that AEC-related thorium after 1960 


was present. He contended that if it was provided to Rocky Flats or 


Mallinckrodt, that is good evidence of AEC-related thorium of that 


fact. 


Mr. Stephan discussed 11 affidavits from workers, which have not been 


questioned by NIOSH, indicating thorium was shipped to Rocky Flats 


beyond 1960. He remarked that the issue is a "he said/she said" 


between the Department of Energy and 11 Dow Madison workers, and the 


Senator feels this is a critical moment in the history of the Board. 


There has to be a decision whether to take the statements of workers 


over statements of the Department of Energy which cannot be backed up 


by documentation. 


* * *
 

Mr. Bill Hoppe
 

Mr. Hoppe spoke by telephone and commented that the workers didn't know 


what they were working with; that over 40 people have died of cancer; 


and if compensation is held out longer, they'll all be dead. 


* * * 


 Board Discussion
 

Dr. Ziemer opened the petition for discussion, observing that there 


appeared to be two issues. One is the evaluation report, on which the 


Board has to act, and an additional request is the issue of expanding 


the covered period. He commented that while there may be great 


sympathy toward that, there is a legal issue and he needed to have some 


definition, explaining his understanding is that the covered period 


definition is not the prerogative of the Board but is established by 


Labor. He called for clarification that the Board has any authority in 


that regard. 


44
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Representing the HHS Office of General Counsel, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus
 

confirmed that those definitions are made by DOL and DOE and are not 


the prerogative of either the Board or the Department of Health and 


Human Services. The Board could express an opinion and make a 


recommendation that the Secretary of HHS contact DOL and DOE regarding 


whatever that opinion might provide. 


* * *


 Petitioner Objections
 

Dr. McKeel objected, claiming that Mr. Richard Miller's opinion was 


that there was nothing in the Act to forbid a class of the SEC covering 


a residual period. 


Mr. Stephan contended it was insulting to the workers, that people from 


DOE and DOL have left the meeting and there's no one but legal counsel 


for HHS to address this issue. 


Dr. Wade explained that NIOSH had the ability to include the residual 


contamination period, but the only material that could be considered 


was DOE or AEC work, which was the uranium. 


Mr. Hinnefeld confirmed that NIOSH had proceeded with the petition with 


the understanding that the uranium extrusion and rod-straightening was 


the AEC work which caused the site to be on the AWE list. NIOSH has 


not been a part of the selection and identification of Atomic Weapons 


Employers. 


* * *
 

Board Discussion (continued)
 

Discussion Points: 


#There was thorium work in the early days, so is there anything that 

establishes uranium as the basis of the AWE designation; 

#Who has the responsibility for making the definitions and what are the 

definitions to which the program is being operated. 


* * *


 Petitioner Objection
 

Dr. McKeel expressed his opinion based on the purchase orders being 


evidence that Dow Madison did AEC uranium work for Mallinckrodt. He 


45
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


asserted anybody who knew anything about metallurgy and the 


nomenclature of alloys would recognize the code word indicating thorium 


alloys. He contended everybody knows the magnesium/thorium alloys were 


used in the aircraft industry, rockets, space shuttle and missiles, and 


Dow provided thousands of tons of alloys for that point. 


Dr. Wade elicited from Dr. McKeel a confirmation that his point is the 


Board could supersede the facility description based upon the evidence 


Dr. McKeel has provided. 


Discussion ensued surrounding the authority of the Board, official site 


description used in the program, the publication the official list of 


sites in a Federal Register notice, the terminology used, the 


interpretation of metal magnesium products. 


Mr. Elliott added that as NIOSH encounters situations where there are 


questions on a site or what a facility designation means for covered 


exposure, they're obligated to coordinate with DOE or DOL on the 


particular issue and that has been done. The designation was based on 


contracts engaged with this AWE, which only show that uranium is AEC 


work. 


Dr. McKeel contended that the Department of Energy missed something, 


and he hoped the Board could say a thorium contract between Dow Midland 


and Mallinckrodt, the AEC, is sufficient to move forward. It would be 


wonderful to get a confirmation from DOE, but he didn't think it would 


be practical. 


* * *
 

Board Discussion (continued)
 

Discussion Points: 


#Is there an SEC petition that covers the extended period; 

#The request being made is to extend the NIOSH evaluation of 

infeasibility into the residual contamination period; 

#It would seem more straightforward to have an SEC petition that 

covered that period; 

#There is no evaluation for feasibility of doing dose reconstructions 

other than from the time period addressed in this petition; 

#NIOSH has provided samples of dose reconstructions for the residual 

period addressed for uranium; 

#What happens if the Board takes the step of moving forward and 

extending the period as suggested; 

#DOL refers to the DOE definition in terms of the site and time period 

46
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


of coverage as far as how they handle the claims; 

#As far as NIOSH is concerned, in the asked-for extended period they 

haven't tried to demonstrate feasibility of reconstructing thorium 


dose, so that data isn't available. 


* * * 


There ensued another open forum discussion between Board members, Dr. 


McKeel and Mr. Stephan as far as documents, AEC work, military 


contractors, Rocky Flats, et cetera. 


Dr. Wade summarized the three issues the Board must look at. The first 


is the report from NIOSH recommending the Board grant the SEC during 


the covered period based on inability to reconstruct thorium dose. 


While it was part of Dow's commercial operation, it can be considered 


during the covered period. Not stated, but upon which the Board can 


comment, is NIOSH claims it can reconstruct uranium dose during the 


residual period. The third is whether or not thorium work was AEC-


related. 


The FUSRAP report is available on the O drive and in the references for 


the Dow Madison evaluation report. 


Dr. Mauro discussed the preliminary review they had done based on 


suggestions from the Board at the last meeting. He described the 


uranium exposures during the covered period, the residual uranium 


exposures, information relative to thorium exposures during the covered 


period, the processes involved with thorium, SC&A's radiochemist's 


examination, lack of information on unique activities associated with 


management of thorium. He commented it appears thorium levels were not 


very high, generally below the limits of detection, but there are 


unknowns that were not researched. It doesn't appear there was a 


serious problem with airborne thorium at the facility during the 


covered period. 


Dr. McKeel, Mr. Stephan, Dr. Makhijani and Mr. Bill Hoppe discussed 


shipping labels from 1962 to 1965, which were almost all thorium going 


to Rocky Flats, Martin Marietta or Lockheed. Labels would say first 


Department of Defense and then DOE, in care of Rocky Flats. 


An unidentified worker interjected that he had been a laborer at Dow 


Madison and some of the extruded thorium couldn't be used so it was 


stored for years and everybody just worked around it. 


The suggestion that the Board move forward with the petition before 


them, with the understanding that there will be an extension or a new 


petition to cover additional dates for residual contamination was 


47
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


objected to by Dr. McKeel on behalf of the petitioners because he had 


expressed the concern on the residual period based on affidavits, on 


the record, with a PowerPoint presentation, and it was a major issue. 


The petitioners are giving additional independent conclusive evidence 


that the thorium work was AEC-related and they don't consider it a new 


issue. 


An understanding among the petitioners and the Congressional 


representatives was expressed that if the Board makes a recommendation 


to the Secretary for something he cannot in turn recommend to Congress, 


as in expanding a period or expanding a definition, time is lost for 


the 47 workers covered under the current petition and the process will 


have to start all over again. Therefore there was agreement to deal 


with the current petition and investigate the issues raised by the 


petitioners. 


Ms. Homoki-Titus indicated that even if the Board agreed to lump 


everything together, the Secretary could say he was recommending the 


addition of one portion and not another. The petitioners' position 


then changed back to putting it all together and letting Labor deal 


with how to separate the time periods. Ms. Homoki-Titus explained she 


couldn't say what the Secretary would do; she was just reporting his 


options. Her recommendation would be to give him the most direct 


guidance of what the Board wants done. 


The Board does not have before it information indicating that the 


residual period group qualifies technically for an SEC petition. There 


is no evaluation report. NIOSH has not examined it, nor has SC&A, as 


to feasibility to do dose reconstructions for the time period. There 


has been a ruling made on the uranium, but not the thorium issue. 


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded to recommend a class be added 


to the Special Exposure Cohort for all AWE employees who were 


monitored, or should have been monitored, for exposure to 


thorium radionuclides while working at the Dow Chemical 


Company, Madison site, for a number of days aggregating at 


least 250 work days during the period from January 1, 1957 


through December 31, 1960, or in combination with work days 


within the parameters established for one or more classes of 


employees in the SEC.
 

The precise language of the motion is attached hereto and incorporated 


herein by reference. 


Discussion Points: 


48
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


#Clarification of why NIOSH concluded they couldn't reconstruct thorium 

dose. 

* * * 


 Petitioner Objection
 

Dr. McKeel objected that he had not been given a single data point from 


the plant, although he had asked for it repeatedly; that the petitioner 


is supposed to be provided all the documents that NIOSH has. 


* * *
 

The motion carried unanimously.
 

* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer suggested it would be appropriate to have a follow-up motion 


dealing with the issue of the extension of the covered period. It was 


agreed the motion would be presented later in the day. 


* * * * *
 

CHAPMAN VALVE SEC PETITION


 NIOSH Update 


Dr. James Neton, 


NIOSH
 

Dr. Neton reminded the Board that the evaluation report was presented 


in September of 2006, when NIOSH recommended the petition be denied. 


NIOSH indicated their belief that dose reconstructions were feasible 


for the class, and it should be denied based on the proposed 


definition. 


The Chapman Valve facility had a two-year contract to do AEC work to 


machine uranium slugs for the Brookhaven Research Reactor. This 


involved lathe operations, grinding, cutting, et cetera. The operation 


was small, involved less than 100 people. They had Q clearances as a 


requirement to work on the project. There was bioassay monitoring data 


and film badge data for a good portion of those workers. 


* * *


 Workgroup Update
 

49
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Dr. Genevieve Roessler, 


for Dr. John Poston, Chair 


Dr. Roessler reported on behalf of the working group chair, Dr. John 


Poston, in his absence. The working group also included Mr. Brad 


Clawson, Mr. Mike Gibson and Mr. Mark Griffon. She reported on the 


background of events, including that in February of 2005 there was a 


worker outreach meeting, at which time the TBD was approved. 


In December a Federal Register notice indicated a Chapman Valve SEC 


petition met the minimum requirement for review and evaluation. The 


evaluation report was submitted in August 2006 and presented at the 


Board meeting in September. SC&A was assigned to evaluate the site 


profile and the working group was appointed, and in October a TBD 


revision was submitted. 


In November, Dr. Roessler shared, the working group chair, Dr. Poston, 


accompanied SC&A staff on a site visit and tour, participating in 


interviews with petitioners and workers. The first working group 


meeting was held shortly thereafter and NIOSH explained they had a good 


bit of data and felt they could do dose reconstructions. A report was 


received in April supporting that belief, and a working group 


teleconference was held later in the month. 


This petition was for all AWE employers who were monitored, or should 


have been monitored, for radiological exposures while performing AEC 


work in Building 23 at Chapman Valve from January 1, 1948 through 


December 31, 1949. Dr. Roessler explained the period through April of 


1949 was the production period, with the remainder considered a 


residual exposure period. 


The official language then continues, indicating a period from January 


1, 1991 through December 31, 1993 as another residual exposure period. 


Dr. Roessler explained the working group is unanimous, with the 


concurrence of SC&A staff, in its conclusion that the NIOSH approach to 


dose reconstruction will provide bounding but claimant-favorable 


estimates of dose to the workers over the periods of interest. 


Based on this conclusion, the working group does not recommend that SEC 


status is warranted for the Chapman Valve employees. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


50
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


#Possibility for a motion similar to the Dow motion on operations 

outside the defined period of time because of a potential enriched 

uranium sample that may or may not be valid; 

#NIOSH has sent a letter about that sample to DOL and DOE asking them 

to investigate, but has not gotten a response; 

#Clarification that there were no bioassay samples on the second 

residual period; 

#There were no film badge data for the residual period, no indication 

individuals were actively working in those areas; 

#Clarification that the letter from NIOSH to DOE and DOL was written 

sometime in February; 

#There was an additional DOE remediation conducted from 1994 to 1995, 

and more information is being sought on those remediation aspects, 

which is why this class definition stops at 1993, which is the 

extent of where NIOSH felt it had sufficient information to 

evaluate; 

#The petitioners asked NIOSH to look at the '48/-49 time period and at 

'91 to '95 and, for the reason just discussed, they recommended 

approval of the period '91 to '93 rather than postpone action on 

the assumption that other information may be developed; 

#If other information is developed, nothing precludes taking that into 

consideration at that time. 

* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded that the NIOSH recommendation 


be accepted and passed along to the Secretary. 


* * * 


The motion was open for discussion. 


Dr. Makhijani provided information about why the question of enriched 


uranium was at issue, having come during a worker interview from a 


different part of the project. There was suggestion of shipment from 


Oak Ridge to a different facility, but which came onto the site by 


train and was then transferred to truck. If there had been 


contamination on the equipment there would be an explanation for why 


there was only a small amount found at the main site. This was not 


only outside the covered period, it would be at a different facility. 


#Was an SC&A report regarding the petition ever put in writing; 

#A report was delivered in December of 2006, but was not available on 

the web site because of the names included and the fact that it 

has not gone through Privacy Act clearance; 

51
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


#The Board has the report, although the petitioner probably does not; 

#Questions about why a document can't get Privacy Act clearance in five 

months; 

#Are there claimants whose claim falls outside the covered time period; 

#Claims that fall outside the covered time period are not eligible 

claims and not sent to NIOSH for dose reconstruction; 


#This is the third example at this meeting of significant delays and 

problems with petitioners and people outside the Board getting 

access to documents that are part of the deliberations; 

#Both at the face-to-face and teleconference meetings of the workgroup 

the petitioners were on the phone and aware of the workgroup 

discussions; 

#Should the Board postpone the vote until the June meeting to allow 

time for the petitioner to review the one report from SC&A they 

haven't seen; 

#A one-day meeting in June will not give enough time to discuss issues 

that have been moved off to that date; 

#These are never going to be easy decisions and there will never be 

full information, and there will never be the last detail that 

everyone would like to have; 

#It is incumbent upon the Board to move forward with the information 

available; 

#The working group spent a lot of time on it, the data there has been 

reviewed and the workgroup recommendation appears valid; 


#A suggestion to expand the meeting in June to two days; 

#It's a different situation when a group of petitioners is expecting to 

be compensated, but in this case the workgroup is not recommending 


approval because NIOSH can do dose reconstructions; 


#A question of how quickly the SC&A report can be redacted and made 

available to the petitioners; 

#GC's office has not received the report so there's no way to judge how 

long it would take; 

#The report was submitted to the Board and NIOSH. 

* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded to table the vote. Being a 


non-debatable motion, and not specifying when it comes off 


the table, the motion carried unanimously and the motion to 


deny the petition was tabled.
 

* * * 


An observation was made that the sequence of how reports flow from SC&A 


52
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


through contracting office to NIOSH and so forth over Privacy Act 


considerations needs to be straightened out. 


* * * * *
 

Review of Language of the Official Rocky Flats Motion
 

Dr. Ziemer indicated the delegation from Colorado wanted to understand 


the definition of "monitored, or should have been monitored, for 


neutrons" and who that actually covers. They've asked that the 


submission to the Secretary be delayed by directive of the Board. Mr. 


Hiller from Senator Salazar's office, speaking on behalf of the 


delegation, indicated their concern with the language of the current 


motion regarding definition of the group of workers subject to 


inclusion in the cohort, '52 to '58 group of workers. They do not want 


the Board to recommend inclusion of the group and have that approved, 


only to have later confusion about which workers are truly eligible for 


inclusion. They don't want them to face another process to prove their 


eligibility, so they're requesting the Board consider an amendment so 


that the letter to the Secretary won't go out until after the June 


meeting, and that the Board in the meantime ask NIOSH and SC&A to 


provide guidance in terms of a description or definition of the group 


of workers eligible for this class. 


Dr. Ziemer observed that the 21 days mentioned in the motion is the 


Board's standard procedure and doesn't change the intent of the motion. 


It is to ensure there is no delay in getting the materials to the 


Secretary but, by agreement of the Board, can be readily modified. 


Ms. Alberg from Senator Allard's office indicated she felt safe in 


saying the Congressional delegation would be supportive of the request. 


She clarified they've not necessarily asking for a delay, but for a 


clarification of who is covered. 


There was a suggestion the number of days be changed from 21 to 42, 


which would then extend past the next Board meeting. If it can be 


addressed in a shorter period of time and people are satisfied, that 


would be fine. 


Without objection, it was agreed that the time period in the motion 


would be changed to 42 days. 


Dr. Wade offered that Mr. Pete Turcic at DOL had been sent the 


definition as stated in the motion, and he had written back raising 


certain questions. It was probably best that those questions be 


resolved before forwarding the recommendation to the Secretary. 


53
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


There was a suggestion that a sentence be added to indicate the Board 


is still considering the possible addition of workers for the time 


period beyond 1958 and expects to make an additional recommendation in 


the near future, just to clarify any questions the Secretary might 


have. That could serve as a heads-up to the Secretary that there is 


more to come. 


The mover indicated that would be accepted as a friendly amendment. 


This motion will come back to the Board in a month since it's being 


held for clarification of the definition at the next meeting. That 


would be an opportunity to affirm or determine any other wording 


changes that need to be made to describe the already-designated class. 


* * * * *
 

DISCUSSION OF BOARD SCHEDULE
 

Dr. Wade led a discussion of the Board's upcoming work schedule. Part 


of the discussion was surrounding a face-to-face meeting in June. A 


call is scheduled for the 12th, but that could be face-to-face. 


Another solution could be a two-day meeting, the 11th and 12th, in 


order to do justice to the complex issues. 


The question of whether all the answers will be available by that time 


in order for the Board to address the Rocky Flats issues was examined. 


There is also the issue of tasking the contractor and asking NIOSH to 


do some related things. 


* * *
 

The proposed wording of the motion regarding the three outstanding 


questions was read into the record. Dr. Neton confirmed that two of 


the three could be done in a fairly short time frame, but the neutron-


to-photon ratio reevaluation could take some time. 


The possibility of a working group meeting in late May to assess the 


final SC&A report and get it to the petitioner before the June meeting 


was discussed. 


Dr. Wade reported that, in addition to the scheduled June 12 phone 


call, there is a July 17-19 face-to-face meeting, a September 4 call, 


and an October 3-5 meeting face-to-face meeting. It was agreed that 


July 17 seemed more reasonable for NIOSH, SC&A and the working group to 


have their questions on the three issues answered. 


A suggestion was made to have an update on the June call to get an 


understanding if the time line is suitable, and then deal with it in 


54
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


July. 


A concern was raised that there has been a public indication to the 


petitioners the Board would deal with the issue in June in Denver, and 


there should be some effort made to do that. Otherwise they should 


discuss it with the petitioners and there should be good reason and a 


sound rationale provided for not doing so and there is not enough 


information right now to be able to do that. 


It was noted that if it can't be done, it is almost making the case by 


default that the Board can't move in a timely fashion, which is one of 


the main issues for the petitioners. If it can't be done in a timely 


fashion it forces the Board to a default position of going with what is 


available because there will never be 100 percent information and at 


some point a determination has to be made that enough is enough. 


Mr. Hiller commented that timeliness is a crucial issue and sooner or 


later there has to be a decision based on available information. If it 


isn't available, that probably directs the Board's action. The motion 


passed yesterday indicated this was going to be resolved on June 12. 


* * *
 

The precise language of the motion is attached hereto and 


incorporated herein by reference. 


A vote was called for on the motion, which passed 

unanimously. 

* * * 

Dr. Wade confirmed there was a quorum of the Board at the table, and 


that he would schedule a face-to-face meeting of the Board for the 11th 


and 12th of June, full days, and for future meetings that the Board 


should plan on their being full-day meetings. 


* * * * *


 Congressional Comment
 

Ms. Portia Wu from Senator Ted Kennedy's office phoned in to the 


meeting and made a statement about the Chapman Valve petition. Dr. 


Ziemer clarified the delayed status of the petition vote and the 


purpose for that. Whether the site profile will be revised in light of 


the Ferguson report, the enriched uranium question and the response 


from DOL and DOE to the NIOSH letter about that was discussed. 


55
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


* * * * *
 

REVIEW OF SEC WRITEUPS
 

Los Alamos National Laboratory
 

Copies of the final wording on the Los Alamos petition were distributed 


and, unless anyone had wording problems, Dr. Ziemer indicated he was 


going to take it by consent that it was acceptable. 


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded that the Advisory Board 


recommend NIOSH provide further consideration to the 


locations listed in Table 5.1 in the Los Alamos report on a 


number of Technical Areas, operational dates and 


radionuclides which were excluded from the current SEC 


recommendations, with NIOSH reporting any findings regarding 


those locations, and consider any new information and report 


to the Advisory Board at the meeting in July. There was a 


further request that SC&A also review the designations and 


information. 


The precise language of the motion is attached hereto and 


incorporated herein by reference.
 

The motion was open for discussion. 


Discussion Points: 


#This work is actually already being done, but the petitioners had 

asked that it be formalized; 

#A concern was expressed about getting as much work done on Rocky Flats 

as possible before the June meeting, and whether this additional 

work on LANL would affect that; 

#The contractor's staff working on Los Alamos and Rocky Flats are 

different. 

The motion carried unanimously. 


* * *
 

Dow Chemical Company (Madison site)
 

The language for the second portion of the Dow Madison recommendations 


was read into the record. This language asked the Secretary of HHS to 


work with the Secretaries of Labor and Energy to address the issue of 


56
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


EEOICPA coverage for Dow Madison workers during the time period 1961 


through 1998. 


The motion was made and seconded, with the precise language being 


attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
 

* * *
 

Mr. Stephan made an additional request, asking that it be clarified 


that the task for SC&A includes speaking to at least the 11 Dow workers 


who have testified to the thorium shipments. 


Dr. Ziemer explained the Board doesn't get to that level of specificity 


in their tasking, but SC&A has heard the point and it is open to them. 


Dr. McKeel contended that unless the words "AEC thorium" are added into 


the letter, he did not think the Secretary would be persuaded. 


Dr. Wade clarified for the record that there was no question in 


anyone's mind that thorium was on the property. The question is 


whether it was AEC thorium, and they wanted to refer to Dr. McKeel's 


documents, if necessary, to make the case. 


* * * 


The motion carried unanimously.
 

* * * 


W. R. Grace Company 


The Board members were provided a draft of the final wording. Dr. 


Ziemer indicated he was going to take it by consent that this standard 


wording was agreeable unless he heard otherwise. The language is 


attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 


* * * * *
 

SANDIA LIVERMORE SEC PETITION
 

Dr. Wade commented that he didn't have an expectation that the Board 


would complete its work on the Sandia Livermore SEC petition evaluation 


report, but he thought it should be started in case the Board wished to 


task some work to be done. 


NIOSH Evaluation Report
 

Dr. Samuel E. Glover, 


57
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Dr. Glover presented the NIOSH evaluation report for SEC Petition 0059, 


noting that it was a very small, well-defined class of three people. 


He provided site history on the facility, the petition submission date 


of May 2005, and the class definition provided by the petitioners. 


That was defined as All X-ray technologists and materials scientists 


who worked in the X-ray Diffraction and Fluorescence Laboratory; 


Building 913, Room 113; Building 913, Room 128; and Building 941, Room 


128 from December 1, 1967 through December 31, 1990. The petition was 


qualified in October of 2006 and the Federal Register notice was 


published that same month. The evaluation report was issued in March 


of 2007. 


The proposed class definition was modified by removing Building 941, 


Room 128 because X-ray diffraction activities in that building began 


after 1992 and outside the time period proposed. 


Sources available for the evaluation included a draft site profile, 


Technical Information Bulletins, telephone interviews with former 


workers, the site research database, as well as documentation and 


affidavits submitted by petitioners. Dr. Glover outlined and explained 


the availability of dosimetry data which was in the NIOSH/OCAS Claims 


Tracking System. 


One case met the class definition. No dose reconstructions have been 


completed. One case contained internal dosimetry and one case 


contained external dosimetry. There was also a CATI report which 


provided work location, work hours and hazard/incidents encountered. 


The petition basis proposed that one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, 


or inadequately monitored exposure incidents occurred, citing two 


incidents during the 23 years of operation, one in 1978, the other in 


1979. Both were due to violations of procedures and standard industry 


practices on the same Norelco Diffraction X-ray Generator. 


Dr. Glover explained the petitioner has provided evidence of potential 


unmonitored exposure, with no personal or area monitoring data for the 


first exposure incident. He noted the Laboratory did not provide 


permanently mounted instrumentation for continuous recording of the 


ionizing radiation being emitted. 


Dr. Glover described the radiological operations, the monitoring 


information for the class, the exposure conditions for sample dose 


reconstruction, a synopsis of the sample dose reconstructions for 


internal exposure to uranium; external exposure, both deep and shallow; 


recorded and unrecorded external exposures. 


58
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


There were 148 documents reviewed and over 250 documents are currently 


undergoing classification review. 


Dr. Glover explained the standard two-pronged test of feasibility and 


health endangerment was applied to the evaluation process for this 


petition. NIOSH concluded that the available monitoring records, 


process descriptions and source term data are adequate to complete dose 


reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for the proposed class of 


employees; therefore health endangerment determination was not 


required. 


NIOSH recommends the petition be denied. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Is this one individual or three; 

#Was the incident a diffraction incident or was the person getting in 

the beam; 

#Diffraction units give very high doses and are highly localized, with 

exposure resulting in an almost immediate skin burn; 

#Scatter is much lower and should be picked up by film badge, but is 

very low energy to start with and then is scattered and would all 

be shallow dose. 

* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

Ms. Emily Howell from the HHS Office of General Counsel read into the 


record a letter on behalf of the petitioner which, although lengthy, 


was done at the specific request of the petitioner. The letter is 


available in its entirety on the NIOSH/OCAS web site, 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


In general the petitioner noted that his dosimetry records for the 


period in question have not been found. He frequently wore his 


dosimeters at the waistline to prevent them from interfering with 


tabletop work, so the dosimeter was blocked by the table and would not 


accurately reflect the exposure. He also discussed the work 


environment and a lack of appropriate shielding. 


He objected to the description in the evaluation report that both 


incidents were due to violations of procedure and standard industry 


practices. He commented that the generator was subsequently removed 


59
 
Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


from service because the generator and faulty shutter could not be 


relied upon. 


The petitioner contested a statement in the evaluation report regarding 


sealed sources. He commented on the fact that during the time period 


in question they were allowed to eat and drink in the same laboratory 


where they dealt with the radioactive and toxic materials. 


* * *
 

Ms. Mary Carter, while on the line and representing the facility, 


indicated she had no comment to add. 


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded to table deliberation on this 


petition until NIOSH has had an opportunity to review the 


data just submitted in the petitioner's letter, with a hope 


that it could be done prior to the June meeting. 


The motion carried unanimously.
 

* * * * *
 

ADDITIONAL WORKGROUP REPORTS
 

Dr. Wade called on Dr. James Melius to report on the status of his two 


workgroups to add to earlier reports. Those are the SEC issue group 


and the Hanford working group. 


Dr. Melius indicated he had reported on Hanford in the conference call 


and there was no update for that. 


On the SEC workgroup mainly dealing with the 250-day issue, the only 


change from his last report was that they have received a report 


regarding the Ames, Iowa lab from SC&A formalizing their earlier 


presentation. They are making progress with NIOSH on some 


informational issues related to Nevada Test Site. He expected that 


possibly by the July meeting they would have made some progress with 


another meeting of the workgroup, but that depends on how much material 


there is for everybody to review. 


* * * * *
 

USE OF DATA FROM OTHER SITES
 

Dr. Ziemer noted there was still one issue unresolved, which is 


60
 
 

_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

Summary Minutes May 2-4, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Bethlehem Steel. The schedule had included a presentation on use of 


data from other sites by the legal department, with the presentation 


materials in the Board's packet, but that will have to be delayed until 


the next meeting. 


Dr. Melius indicated he would speak with Ms. Homoki-Titus to be sure 


that any specific questions he had were covered in her presentation. 


Dr. Ziemer made the observation that the practical effect is that they 


would be tabling the Bethlehem work until the next meeting. 


Ms. Homoki-Titus added that she believed some of Dr. Melius's questions 


would lead the GC office to violate attorney/client privilege. She 


suggested they may be able to work out a closed meeting. 


* * * * *
 

With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was 


adjourned at 12:52 p.m. 


End of Summary Minutes 


Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë 

I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are 


accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 


Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 


Date 


61